References
- Su SF, Wu MS, Yeh WT, Liao YC. Effects of lumbar fusion surgery with ISOBAR devices versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery on pain and disability in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis. J Invest Surg. 2019;33(1):79–93.
- Farrokhi MR, Yadollahikhales G, Gholami M, Mousavi SR, Mesbahi AR, Asadi-Pooya AA. Clinical outcomes of posterolateral fusion vs. posterior lumbar interbody fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative instability. Pain Physician. 2018;21:383–406.
- Farrokhi MR, Gholami M. A letter to the editor regarding “Fusion or Not for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review”. Pain Physician. 2018;21:E284–E287.
- Lawrence BD, Wang J, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer J, Norvell DC, Brodke DS. Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology after lumbar fusion: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:S123–S132.
- Zhang L, Shu X, Duan Y, Ye G, Jin A, Effectiveness of ISOBAR TTL semi-rigid dynamic stabilization system in treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2012;2:1066–1070.
- Korovessis P, Repantis T, Papazisis Z, Iliopoulos P. Effect of sagittal spinal balance, levels of posterior instrumentation, and length of follow-up on low back pain in patients undergoing posterior decompression and instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar spine disease: a multifactorial analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(8):898–905.
- Lee JC, Kim Y, Soh JW, Shin BJ. Risk factors of adjacent segment disease requiring surgery after lumbar spinal fusion: comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(5):E339–E345.
- Chuang WH, Lin SC, Chen SH, et al. Biomechanical effects of disc degeneration and hybrid fixation on the transition and adjacent lumbar segments: trade-off between junctional problem, motion preservation, and load protection. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(24):E1488–E1497.
- Jahng TA, Kim YE, Moon KY. Comparison of the biomechanical effect of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization: a study using finite element analysis. Spine J. 2013;13(1):85–94.
- Yang Y, Hong Y, Liu H, et al. Comparison of clinical and radiographic results between isobar posterior dynamic stabilization and posterior lumbar inter-body fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a four-year retrospective study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015;136:100–106.
- Kumar N. A comparison of outcome between Isobar TTL and conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Global Spine J. 2015;5(1_suppl):s-0035-1554606.
- Ekman P, Möller H, Tullberg T, Neumann P, Hedlund R. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(20):2178–2183.
- Farrokhi MR, Jamali M, Gholami M, Farrokhi F, Hosseini K. Clinical and radiological outcomes after decompression and posterior fusion in patients with degenerative scoliosis. Br J Neurosurg. 2017;31:514–525.
- Farrokhi MR, Yazdanpanah H, Gholami M, Farrokhi F, Mesbahi AR. Pain and functional improvement effects of methylene blue injection on the soft tissue around fusion site after traumatic thoracolumbar fixation: a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled study. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016;150:6–12.
- Wang JC, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer JT, Norvell DC. Do lumbar motion preserving devices reduce the risk of adjacent segment pathology compared with fusion surgery? A systematic review. Spine. 2012;37:S133–S143. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826cadf2