Figure 5.

Quantitative evaluations of gross appearance and histology according to the grading scale reported by Wayne et al. G-I; a 0.5-mm gel sheet was implanted at the bottom of the defect. G-II; a 1.0-mm gel sheet was implanted at the bottom of the defect. G-III; a 5.0-mm gel plug was implanted at the bottom of the defect. G-IV; the control group has a defect left untreated.a Significantly different from the 2.0- and 3.0-mm depths of the final vacant space in G-II (p = 0.0029 and p = 0.0074, respectively). b Significantly different from the 2.0- and 3.0-mm depths of the final vacant space in G-II (p = 0.0057 and p = 0.0100, respectively). c Significantly different from the 2.0- and 3.0-mm depths of the final vacant space in G-III (p = 0.0188 and p = 0.0038, respectively). d Significantly different from the 2.0-mm depth of the final vacant space in G-I (p = 0.0206). e Significantly different from the 2.0- and 3.0-mm depths of the final vacant space in G-II (p = 0.0032 and p = 0.0069, respectively). f Significantly different from the 2.0- and 3.0-mm depths of the final vacant space in G-III (p = 0.0299 and p = 0.0299, respectively).

Matsuda et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2013 14:50   doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-50
Download authors' original image