Publication:
Comparison of Hybrid Dynamic Stabilization with TLIF Versus Dynamic Stabilization Alone in Degenerative Lumbar Instability

dc.contributor.coauthorErdogan, Uzay
dc.contributor.coauthorBerikol, Gurkan
dc.contributor.coauthorAlbas, Ibrahim Taha
dc.contributor.coauthorAkgun, Mehmet Yigit
dc.contributor.coauthorOktenoglu, Tunc
dc.contributor.coauthorAtes, Ozkan
dc.contributor.coauthorOzer, Ali Fahir
dc.contributor.departmentKUH (Koç University Hospital)
dc.contributor.departmentKUTTAM (Koç University Research Center for Translational Medicine)
dc.contributor.kuauthorDoctor, Akgün, Mehmet Yiğit
dc.contributor.kuauthorFaculty Member, Öktenoğlu, Bekir Tunç
dc.contributor.kuauthorFaculty Member, Ateş, Özkan
dc.contributor.kuauthorFaculty Member, Özer, Ali Fahir
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteKUH (KOÇ UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL)
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteResearch Center
dc.date.accessioned2025-09-10T04:57:42Z
dc.date.available2025-09-09
dc.date.issued2025
dc.description.abstractObjective: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of dynamic rod stabilization with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar instability. Specifically, we evaluated the prognostic value of hybrid systems in reducing adjacent segment disease (ASD), enhancing fusion rates, and improving functional outcomes. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 62 patients treated between 2019 and 2022. Group 1 (n = 34) underwent dynamic rod stabilization alone, while Group 2 (n = 28) received dynamic stabilization combined with TLIF. Radiological assessments included disk height index (DHI) and fusion rates. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain at baseline, 12, and 24 months. Statistical analysis was performed using Jamovi (R) software (version 2.4.1). Results: The hybrid group (dynamic + TLIF) demonstrated significantly higher anterior fusion rates (p < 0.001) and greater improvement in VAS scores for back (p = 0.005) and leg pain (p < 0.001) at 12 months. Although operative time was longer (p = 0.002), there was no significant difference in hospital stay (p = 0.635). No significant differences were observed in ASD development (p = 0.11) or pseudoarthrosis (p = 0.396). The hybrid group maintained better lumbar lordosis and higher adjacent segment DHI. Conclusions: Hybrid dynamic stabilization combined with TLIF provides superior clinical outcomes and fusion rates compared to dynamic stabilization alone, without significantly increasing the risk of ASD. These findings support the use of hybrid constructs as a balanced strategy for treating degenerative lumbar instability.
dc.description.fulltextYes
dc.description.harvestedfromManual
dc.description.indexedbyWOS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.indexedbyPubMed
dc.description.openaccessGold OA
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.readpublishN/A
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEuN/A
dc.description.versionPublished Version
dc.description.volume15
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/diagnostics15151887
dc.identifier.eissn2075-4418
dc.identifier.embargoNo
dc.identifier.filenameinventorynoIR06461
dc.identifier.issue15
dc.identifier.quartileN/A
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15151887
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/30280
dc.identifier.wos001551179900001
dc.keywordslumbar fusion
dc.keywordsdynamic stabilization
dc.keywordsTLIF
dc.keywordsimaging assessment
dc.keywordsadjacent segment disease
dc.keywordshybrid constructs
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherMdpi
dc.relation.affiliationKoç University
dc.relation.collectionKoç University Institutional Repository
dc.relation.ispartofDiagnostics
dc.relation.openaccessYes
dc.rightsCC BY (Attribution)
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectMedicine, General & Internal
dc.titleComparison of Hybrid Dynamic Stabilization with TLIF Versus Dynamic Stabilization Alone in Degenerative Lumbar Instability
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationf91d21f0-6b13-46ce-939a-db68e4c8d2ab
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication91bbe15d-017f-446b-b102-ce755523d939
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryf91d21f0-6b13-46ce-939a-db68e4c8d2ab
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication055775c9-9efe-43ec-814f-f6d771fa6dee
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublicationd437580f-9309-4ecb-864a-4af58309d287
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery055775c9-9efe-43ec-814f-f6d771fa6dee

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
IR06461.pdf
Size:
4.08 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format