Objective To compare the outcomes of two operative methods, the anterior decompression in subsection and the anterior decompression in one section, which were used to treat multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Methods Data of multilevel CSM undergoing the anterior decompression in subsection (33 cases, the subsection group) and the anterior decompression in one section (19 cases, the one section group) from July 1999 to January 2004 were retrospectively analyzed. The- incidence of perioperative complications and the rate of fusion were evaluated by the postoperative X-ray and MRI examinations, and improvement of the neurological function was evaluated by the JOA score.Results The incidence of perioperative complications was 36.8%in the one section group, mainly including immigration of the plate and grafts,which was settled by the revision surgery; while the incidence of perioperative compilcations was 12.1% in the subsection group, mainly including the immigration of the titanium mesh. There was a significant difference between the two groups (Plt;0.05). 84.2％ of the patients in the one section group and 81.8％ of the patients in the subsection group developed bony fusion by the end of the follow-up (9-31 mon, averaged 112 mon), and there was no significant differencebetween the two groups (Pgt;0.05). According to the JOA score, the ratio of the improvement in the neurological function was 70.4% in the subsection group and 64.4% in the one section group. There was no significant difference between the two groups (Pgt;0.05). Conclusion The anterior decompression in subsection is more rational for the surgical treatment on the multilevel CSM than the anterior decompression in one section. It can provide an equal decompressive effect but a more stable local mechanical environment right after the surgery and can maintain it well, which is critical for the bony fusion.
OBJECTIVE: To comprehend the progress of tissue engineering research and speculate its developmental trends. METHODS: MEDLINE search was conducted to retrieve the papers published between 1987 to 1999 under the main headings of tissue engineering. Years, nationalities, languages, journals, authors and heading frequencies of 314 papers were analyzed by bibliometrics. RESULTS: Since 1990, the number of tissue engineering research literatures had doubled, and papers between 1998 and 1999 made up 57.96% of the total papers. All papers came from 15 nations, in 6 languages and 140 journals; 64.97% came from United States and 25.79% from England, Netherlands and Germany; 93.95% was in English; 42.04% was published on 15 journals. Vacanti JP and 19 other authors presented 5 to 24 papers. Heading frequencies were cytology 22.89%, transplantation 13.30%, scaffolds and extracellular matrixes 11.72%, implanting 10.60%, polymers 8.91%, potential applications 8.91%, artificial substitutes 6.88%, tissue culture 6.70% and biogenetics 4.96%. CONCLUSION: Tissue engineering literatures mainly come from United States, England, Netherlands and Germany. English is the major language. J Biomed Mater Res and 14 other journals are important journals about tissue engineering research. Vacanti JP and 19 other authors are prolific authors. Cytology, transplantation, scaffolds and extracellular matrixes and implanting are hot topics and key points on tissue engineering research.