Objective To compare the efficacy of transplanting bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell (BMSC) or microenvironmental induced BMSC ( iBMSC) into the ischemic myocardium of rats with myocardial infarction. Methods iBMSC was defined as BMSC co-cultured with myocardial cells for 2 weeks. The stem cells or equal volume PBS were injected into ischemic border zone 1 wk after experimental infarction. Cardiac performance was evaluated at 1, 2, and 4 wk after cell transplantation by echocardiography and analyzed histologically at 4 wk after cell transplantations. Results Compared with PBS group, both BMSC and iBMSC transplantations reduced infarct size. iBMSC enhanced the beneficial effects of BMSC on improving cardiac function (FS: 28.5% ±4.3% in PBS, 29.0% ±2.0% in BMSC and 45. 1% ±3. 1% in iBMSC group at 4 weeks post transplantation, iBMSC group vs. PBS group P <0. 05, iBMSC group vs. BMSC group P <0. 05). Immunofluorescence microscopy results revealed co-localization of SPIO-labeled transplanted cells with cardiac markers for cardiomyocytes, indicating regeneration of damaged myocardium. Conclusion Our data suggest that iBMSC implantation is more effective on improving cardiac function than BMSC implantation in this model. iBMSC might serve as a new promising therapeutic cell source for regenerating ischemic myocardium in patients with post-infarction heart failure.

OBJECTIVETo compare the therapeutic effect of percutaneous cervical disc nucleoplasty (PCN group) and percutaneous cervical discectomy (PCD group) for the treatment of cervical disc herniation.

METHODSA retrospective study was carried out from July of 2002 to December of 2004, and there were 80 cervical disc herniation cases who were operated by PCN (42 cases) or PCD (38 cases). The time of operation, clinical result and the stability of cervical spine after operation were evaluated and compared between 2 groups.

RESULTSAll cases had been followed up from 6 months to 26 months, average (12 +/- 5) months on the PCN group and (12 +/- 4) months on the PCD group, and there was no significant difference on 2 groups (t = -0.06, P = 0.953). All cases had been successfully operated. There was significant difference in the operation time between 2 groups (t = -21.70, P = 0.000). There was significant difference in the pre- and post-operation scores of each group (PCN group: t = 14.05, P = 0.000; PCD group: t = -14.79, P = 0.000). There was no significant difference in 2 groups of the clinical outcomes (z = -0.377, P = 0.706, > 0.05). There was no instability of cervical spine cases in 2 groups after operation (P > 0.05), and the cervical spine stability was no significant difference in pre- and-operation in each group.

CONCLUSIONSPCN and PCD for the treatment of cervical disc herniation achieves good outcomes and no difference on the stability of cervical spine. PCN and PCD is a safe, minimally invasive, short time of operation, less traumatic operation and excellent clinical outcome.

Adult ; Catheter Ablation ; Cervical Vertebrae ; surgery ; Decompression, Surgical ; methods ; Diskectomy, Percutaneous ; Female ; Humans ; Intervertebral Disc Displacement ; surgery ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome

Aged ; Cognitive Dysfunction/epidemiology* ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Geriatric Assessment ; Humans ; Independent Living ; Sarcopenia/epidemiology*