With the continuous development of spinal surgery techniques, spinal fusion techniques have been widely used. This procedure is more invasive and also accelerates the degeneration of adjacent segments due to the application of fusion techniques, which affects the long-term outcome. This issue has also received increasingly widespread attention. The occurrence of vertebral slippage after spinal fusion was first reported by Anderson in 1956, and secondary cases of slippage after spinal fusion were noted by Harris in 1963, and spinal stenosis after anterior spinal fusion was reported by Louw in 1988. Ding Yu and Dick Nguyen et al. demonstrated biomechanically that after spinal fusion internal fixation, there is increased displacement and altered motion patterns of adjacent segments, which predispose to secondary instability and degeneration. This suggests that spinal fusion is prone to degeneration of adjacent segments after spinal fusion. I. Traditional lumbar fusion: fusion + strong fixation is the gold standard of treatment mode. Traditional lumbar fusion has its advantages: 1. initial stability (early movement, no need for bracing, early return to work); 2. improved fusion rate; 3. correction of sagittal imbalance (vertebral slippage, degenerative scoliosis, retroversion). There are also disadvantages: mechanically related: reduction of bone volume due to stress masking, endograft failure, sagittal sagittal imbalance; fusion-related: pseudoarthrosis, bone graft-related complications, adjacent segment degeneration. Therefore, successful fusion is not equal to satisfactory clinical outcome. Second, dynamic stabilization system: a stabilization system that preserves beneficial motion and intersegmental load transfer without vertebral segmental fusion. The ideal dynamic stabilization system should: 1. alter the load transfer pattern of the spinal motion segments; 2. block the direction and plane of motion that produces pain; 3. preserve other normal lumbar mobility Lumbar dynamic stabilization system: lumbar interspinous internal fixation system – interspinous non-fusion fixator (Wallis), the The Wallis system is a lumbar interspinous fixator with a long history of research. The wallis implant was systematically modified in 2001, and the second generation wallis implant was introduced to the market in the same year and has been widely used with the expected positive results. The entire wallis system forms a floating device between the spinous processes, does not fuse the vertebral segments, has no permanent fixation of the vertebral body, retains a stable system of beneficial motion and intersegmental load transfer, increases the stability of the unstable segments, influences the biomechanical environment of lumbar degenerative lower back pain, reduces the load on the posterior edge of the disc annulus fibrosus, acts as a support for the intervertebral foramen, does not increase the displacement of adjacent segments It prevents the direction and plane of motion that produces pain, and preserves other normal lumbar mobility, maintains a certain degree of bracing force between the spinous processes, and the degree of bracing changes continuously with the lumbar flexion and extension activities, and is suitable for proper loosening in flexion and proper tightening in posterior extension, thus preventing secondary instability and degeneration. (I) Design concept: 1.Increases the stability of the destabilized segment while also preserving its motor function and reducing the occurrence of secondary degeneration of adjacent segments after surgery. 2.No fusion of vertebral segments, retaining the stabilization system for beneficial motion and intersegmental load transfer. 3.The intervertebral foramen is propped open without increasing the displacement of adjacent segments, preventing the direction and plane of motion that produces pain, and preserving other normal lumbar mobility, thus preventing secondary instability and degeneration. (ii) Indications: 1. removal of herniated nucleus pulposus of giant disc 2. resection of recurrent herniated disc 3. resection of herniated disc of lumbar 5 sacralization 4. fusion of adjacent level degenerative disc disease 5. lower back pain caused by Modic type I lesion (iii) wallis system is not applicable to severe slippage (iv) Advantages: 1. less trauma 2. less disruption of anatomy and physiological structure 3. easy revision (There are many methods to choose from.) Clinical application: Since November 2007, our department has treated 106 cases of lumbar disc herniation with Wallis (interspinous non-fusion fixator) for the first time. (A) Clinical data: 106 patients, 49 males and 57 females. Age: 32-67 years old, average 48 years old, including 4 cases of L2-3 segment, 13 cases of L3-4 segment, 89 cases of L4-5 segment, 102 cases of single segment, 3 cases of two segments and 1 case of three segments. (B) Surgical method: After successful anesthesia, routine disinfection and sterile sheets were laid. In the dorsal approach, a posterior median lumbar incision was made, with the diseased vertebral body as the center, the skin and subcutaneous fascia were cut, and the supraspinous ligament was exposed. The dura and nerve roots were exposed, the nerve roots were protected, the prolapsed nucleus pulposus was isolated and removed, the interspinous pad was selected for trial molding, and the interspinous pad and binding band were implanted after suitable, and the implant was checked for firmness; sutures were passed through the upper and lower spinous processes and the ligaments were closed, drainage tubes were placed, sutures were placed layer by layer, and the incision was cleaned and bandaged. (C) The patients were scored into JOA preoperatively and at three and twelve months postoperatively, respectively, for statistical analysis. Patients selected to perform L4-5 segmentation were measured before and three and twelve months after surgery for statistical analysis of the height of the upper and lower intervertebral space of the operated vertebral body. (d) Results: There was a significant difference (P0.05) between the preoperative JOA scores at three months and twelve months after surgery. The mean postoperative improvement rate was 72.3% at three months and 73.5% at twelve months (postoperative improvement rate = [postoperative score – preoperative score/29 (total score) – preoperative score] × 100%). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral space height between the adjacent upper and lower vertebral segments before surgery (P>0.05), nor was there any significant difference in the intervertebral space height at three months and twelve months after surgery (P>0.05). Preoperative (MN±SD) Two weeks postoperative (MN±SD) Six months postoperative (MN±SD) JOA score 13.4±3.5 24.7±2.2* 24.9±2.5*# *Significant difference compared to preoperative (P0.05) Preoperative (MN±SD) Two weeks postoperative (MN±SD) Six months postoperative (MN±SD) Adjacent upper segment interbody height 12.37 ±1.26 12.36±1.40* 12.35±1.47*# adjacent lower segment intervertebral space height 11.83±1.33 11.82±1.37* 11.80±1.54*# *No significant difference compared with preoperative (P>0.05); #No statistically significant compared with two weeks postoperative (P>0.05) (V) Conclusion: Through more than one year of clinical We believe that Wallis is suitable for the following degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine: lumbar disc herniation with segmental instability, recurrent lumbar disc herniation, Modic type I lesions leading to lumbar leg pain and mild lumbar spinal stenosis. Wallis treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases that meet its indications has good clinical efficacy, simple operation, short operation time, little injury, less bleeding and can avoid the adverse effects caused by fusion techniques.