Skip to main content

Table 3 Radiological outcomes

From: Comparison between single-segment Isobar EVO dynamic stabilization and Isobar TTL dynamic stabilization in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a single center retrospective study over 4 years

Groups

Pre-operation

Final follow-up

P

ROM of operative segment(°)

 TTL

8.33 ± 0.89

2.16 ± 0.56*†

< 0.01

 EVO

8.19 ± 0.84

4.23 ± 0.42*†

< 0.01

P

0.478

< 0.01

 

ROM of upper adjacent segment(°)

 TTL

8.09 ± 0.50

8.14 ± 0.48

0.063

 EVO

8.04 ± 0.72

8.10 ± 0.66

0.110

P

0.754

0.748

 

ISH of operative segment(mm)

 TTL

11.07 ± 1.65

11.47 ± 0.86

0.144

 EVO

11.59 ± 0.83

11.51 ± 0.59

0.665

P

0.078

0.807

 

ISH of upper adjacent segment(mm)

 TTL

11.59 ± 0.67

10.98 ± 0.63*†

< 0.01

 EVO

11.19 ± 1.60

11.33 ± 0.67*

0.633

P

0.162

0.019

 
  1. ROM, range of motion; ISH, intervertebral space height
  2. *Significant difference preoperatively and at the final follow-up between the TTL and EVO groups using the Independent two-sample t-test, P < 0.05
  3. †Significant difference between pre- and post-operative condition in each group using the paired t-test, P < 0.05
Back to article page

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us