Tranexamic acid as a therapeutic option for melasma management: meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA) in treating melasma through a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The study focused on identifying associated adverse effects and comparing TXA's effectiveness with other melasma treatments.Materials and methods: Following PROSPERO and PRISMA guidelines, an extensive electronic search was conducted across four databases for RCTs on TXA use in melasma. Inclusion criteria encompassed full-text English articles with specific outcome measures, while studies with high bias risk or non-English publications were excluded. Data were extracted from 22 relevant studies and analyzed using the RevMan software, with heterogeneity identified using I² statistics and forest plots.Results: A total of 22 studies with 1280 patients were included. TXA was administered orally, topically, or via injection, with treatment durations ranging from 8 weeks to nearly 2 years. TXA significantly reduced melasma severity, evidenced by reductions in MASI, mMASI, MI, and hemi-MASI scores. Oral TXA showed the most substantial decrease in MASI scores, followed by injections and topical applications. However, studies exhibited high heterogeneity, particularly in combined treatments. Adverse effects included gastrointestinal discomfort, skin irritation, and menstrual irregularities.Conclusions: TXA is effective in treating melasma, either alone or combined with other treatments. Despite significant reductions in melasma severity, further research is necessary to standardize TXA administration methods and address long-term effects. The high heterogeneity observed suggests a need for more consistent treatment protocols.

A Systemic Review of Adolescent Supracondylar Fractures: What Is the Surgical Treatment, Open Reduction With Internal Fixation (ORIF) or Closed Reduction With Percutaneous Pinning (CRPP)?

Supracondylar humerus (SCH) fractures represent the most frequent elbow injury in young children. These fractures can be treated through either closed reduction with percutaneous pinning (CRPP) or open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF). Yet, the optimal treatment option for adolescents remains unclear. This research contrasts the results of CRPP and ORIF treatments for distal humerus fractures in adolescents. In June 2023, we conducted a comprehensive search of PUBMED, OVID MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and various trial registries without any time restrictions. We evaluated the quality of qualifying studies using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) and Cochrane risk measures for bias. We extracted data particularly related to patient demographics, fracture details, medical procedures followed, complications encountered, and the resulting outcomes. Out of the 488 studies identified, only four satisfied the inclusion criteria. Both methods illustrated comparable outcomes in terms of range of motion, averaging approximately 118 degrees in the ORIF group versus a span of 114 to 128 degrees in the CRPP group. The immobilization period varied, spanning 10 to 13 days for ORIF versus 24 to 29 days for CRPP. Despite this, CRPP displayed a decreased necessity for additional surgery. Notably, one study indicated a higher frequency of heterotopic ossification within the ORIF group. This review indicates that both CRPP and ORIF are effective for treating supracondylar fractures in adolescents, yielding similar results. However, CRPP has a lower need for follow-up surgery. Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to solidify these findings, providing stronger guidance for treatment.