Clinical neurology and neurosurgery · 2015
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.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yang Yi, Hong Ying, Liu Hao, Song Yueming, Li Tao, Liu Limin, Gong Quan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: A retrospective study was conducted to compare clinical outcome with radiographic data and clinical complications between isobar posterior dynamic stabilization (IPDS, Scient'x, France) and posterior lumbar inter-body fusion (PLIF) for lumbar degenerative disease.
METHODS: 113 consecutive patients (IPDS group, N=62; PLIF group, N=51) with lumbar degenerative disease were operated on between March 2009 and November 2011. Patient charts, radiographic films and medical records were reviewed. Clinical outcomes including the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and radiographic outcomes, including disk height index (DHI) and range of motion (ROM) were retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: The ODI and VAS leg and back pain scores in two groups were significantly improved at 6 and, 24 months and at the final follow-up (all, P<0.05). The degree of improvements in the ODI and VAS back pain scores, the incidence of complications and the rate of adjacent segment degeneration were similar in both groups (P>0.05). However, operation times and blood loss were significantly reduced in the IPDS group (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: In summary, with similar symptoms improvement and complication rates, the results of this study demonstrate that IPDS is an effective and safe treatment for lumbar degenerative disease. There is currently insufficient evidence to indicate that the IPDS can avoid adjacent segment degeneration therefore, it is essential to conduct prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up.
METHODS: 113 consecutive patients (IPDS group, N=62; PLIF group, N=51) with lumbar degenerative disease were operated on between March 2009 and November 2011. Patient charts, radiographic films and medical records were reviewed. Clinical outcomes including the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and radiographic outcomes, including disk height index (DHI) and range of motion (ROM) were retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: The ODI and VAS leg and back pain scores in two groups were significantly improved at 6 and, 24 months and at the final follow-up (all, P<0.05). The degree of improvements in the ODI and VAS back pain scores, the incidence of complications and the rate of adjacent segment degeneration were similar in both groups (P>0.05). However, operation times and blood loss were significantly reduced in the IPDS group (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: In summary, with similar symptoms improvement and complication rates, the results of this study demonstrate that IPDS is an effective and safe treatment for lumbar degenerative disease. There is currently insufficient evidence to indicate that the IPDS can avoid adjacent segment degeneration therefore, it is essential to conduct prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up.