| Literature DB >> 24898377 |
Jun Gao, Weihua Zhao, Xi Zhang1, Luming Nong, Dong Zhou, Zhengxiang Lv, Yonghua Sheng, Xingbiao Wu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), we analyzed the efficacy of the posterior approach lumbar ISOBAR TTL internal fixation system for the dynamic fixation of intervertebral discs, with particular emphasis on its effects on degenerative intervertebral disc disease.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24898377 PMCID: PMC4060636 DOI: 10.1186/1749-799X-9-43
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
The basic data of patients of the two groups
| ISOBAR TTL | 8 | 16 | 58.3 ± 13.5 | 28.7 ± 5.3 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 7 |
| PLIF | 11 | 19 | 61.4 ± 15.2 | 30.1 ± 6.8 | 4 | 5 | 12 | 9 |
Figure 1Patient with L4/L5 spondylolisthesis I grade, L5/S1 and L4/L5 protrusion of intervertebral disc, spinal stenosis. The patient is female and 64 years old. (A) Preoperative lumbar radiograph. (B) Preoperative lumbar lateral film. (C) MRI of the lumbar spine, intervertebral disc degeneration, L4/L5 intervertebral disc degeneration, V grade. (D) ISOBAR TTL internal fixation system, L3/L4 implanted microactuator device, the postoperative lumbar radiograph. (E) Postoperative lumbar lateral film. (F) Lumbar intervertebral disc MRI after 2 years, L3/L4 grade III degeneration, L4/L5 grade IV intervertebral disc degeneration.
Figure 2Patient with L4/L5 grade I spondylolisthesis, L3/L4 and L4/L5 protrusion of intervertebral disc, spinal stenosis. (A) Preoperative lumbar radiographs. (B) Preoperative lateral lumbar spine MRI. (C) L3/L4 grade IV intervertebral disc degeneration. (D) ISOBAR TTL internal fixation system, L3/L4 implanted microactuator device, the postoperative lumbar radiograph. (E) Postoperative lumbar lateral film. (F) Lumbar intervertebral disc MRI after 2 years, L3/L4 grade II lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration.
Comparison of preoperative and postoperative JOA total scores of the two groups of patients
| ISOBAR TTL | 9.45 ± 2.19 | 18.75 ± 2.56* | 22.82 ± 3.07* | 26.17 ± 3.67* |
| PLIF | 10.94 ± 2.47 | 16.33 ± 1.86* | 20.75 ± 2.56* | 22.46 ± 3.97* |
| >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
Compared with preoperative, *P < 0.05.
Comparison of preoperative and postoperative ODI values of the two groups of patients
| ISOBAR TTL | 60.36 ± 11.25 | 20.18 ± 6.46* | 15.07 ± 4.82* | 11.83 ± 5.68* |
| PLIF | 58.19 ± 10.83 | 22.16 ± 6.17* | 18.43 ± 5.66* | 13.28 ± 3.37* |
| >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
Compared with preoperative, *P < 0.05.
Comparison of preoperative and postoperative ADC values of the two groups of patients
| ISOBAR TTL | 1.03 ± 0.28 | 1.13 ± 0.31 | 1.11 ± 0.37 | 1.25 ± 0.24* |
| PLIF | 1.16 ± 0.40 | 1.08 ± 0.22 | 1.01 ± 0.25 | 0.94 ± 0.28* |
| >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | <0.05 |
Compared with preoperative, *P < 0.05.