ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to determine (1) change in function, pain, and quality of life following structured nonoperative treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM); (2) variability of change in function, pain, and quality of life following different types of structured nonoperative treatment; (3) differences in outcomes observed between certain subgroups (eg, baseline severity score, duration of symptoms); and (4) negative outcomes and harms resulting from structured nonoperative treatment. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Collaboration for articles published between January 1, 1950, and February 9, 2015. Studies were included if they evaluated outcomes following structured nonoperative treatment, including therapeutic exercise, manual therapy, cervical bracing, and/or traction. The quality of each study was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and strength of the overall body of evidence was rated using guidelines outlined by the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group. RESULTS: Of the 570 retrieved citations, 8 met inclusion criteria and were summarized in this review. Based on our results, there is very low evidence to suggest that structured nonoperative treatment for DCM results in either a positive or negative change in function as evaluated by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of evidence to determine the role of nonoperative treatment in patients with DCM. However, in the majority of studies, patients did not achieve clinically significant gains in function following structured nonoperative treatment. Furthermore, 23% to 54% of patients managed nonoperatively subsequently underwent surgical treatment.
ABSTRACT
Study Design Systematic review. Clinical Questions (1) When used as an assistive device, do wearable exoskeletons improve lower extremity function or gait compared with knee-ankle-foot orthoses (KAFOs) in patients with complete or incomplete spinal cord injury? (2) When used as a rehabilitation device, do wearable exoskeletons improve lower extremity function or gait compared with other rehabilitation strategies in patients with complete or incomplete spinal cord injury? (3) When used as an assistive or rehabilitation device, are wearable exoskeletons safe compared with KAFO for assistance or other rehabilitation strategies for rehabilitation in patients with complete or incomplete spinal cord injury? Methods PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases and reference lists of key articles were searched from database inception to May 2, 2016, to identify studies evaluating the effectiveness of wearable exoskeletons used as assistive or rehabilitative devices in patients with incomplete or complete spinal cord injury. Results No comparison studies were found evaluating exoskeletons as an assistive device. Nine comparison studies (11 publications) evaluated the use of exoskeletons as a rehabilitative device. The 10-meter walk test velocity and Spinal Cord Independence Measure scores showed no difference in change from baseline among patients undergoing exoskeleton training compared with various comparator therapies. The remaining primary outcome measures of 6-minute walk test distance and Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury I and II and Functional Independence Measure-Locomotor scores showed mixed results, with some studies indicating no difference in change from baseline between exoskeleton training and comparator therapies, some indicating benefit of exoskeleton over comparator therapies, and some indicating benefit of comparator therapies over exoskeleton. Conclusion There is no data to compare locomotion assistance with exoskeleton versus conventional KAFOs. There is no consistent benefit from rehabilitation using an exoskeleton versus a variety of conventional methods in patients with chronic spinal cord injury. Trials comparing later-generation exoskeletons are needed.
ABSTRACT
Study Design Systematic review. Objectives To determine the incidence of catastrophic cervical spine injuries (CCSIs) among elite athletes participating in contact team sports and whether the incidence varies depending on the use of protective gear or by player position. Methods Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles published from January 1, 2000, to January 29, 2016, were searched. Results Fourteen studies were included that reported CCSI in rugby (n = 10), American football (n = 3), and Irish hurling (n = 1). Among Rugby Union players, incidence of CCSI was 4.1 per 100,000 player-hours. Among National Football League players, the CCSI rate was 0.6 per 100,000 player-exposures. At the collegiate level, the CCSI rate ranged from 1.1 to 4.7 per 100,000 player-years. Mixed populations of elite and recreational rugby players in four studies report a CCSI rate of 1.4 to 7.2 per 100,000 player-years. In this same population, the scrum accounted for 30 to 51% of total reported CCSIs in Rugby Union versus 0 to 4% in Rugby League. The tackle accounted for 29 to 39% of injuries in Rugby Union and 78 to 100% of injuries in Rugby League. Making a tackle was responsible for 29 to 80% of injuries in American football. Conclusion CCSIs are infrequent among elite athletes. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of protective gear (e.g., helmets, padding) on CCSI incidence. Scrum and tackle in rugby and tackling in American football account for the majority of CCSIs in each respective sport.
ABSTRACT
Phosphatase of Regenerating Liver (PRL) family members have emerged as molecular markers that significantly correlate to the ability of many cancers to metastasize. However, contradictory cellular responses to PRL expression have been reported, including the inhibition of cell cycle progression. An obvious culprit for the discrepancy is the use of dozens of different cell lines, including many isolated from tumors or cultured cells selected for immortalization which may have missing or mutated modulators of PRL function. We created transgenic Drosophila to study the effects of PRL overexpression in a genetically controlled, organismal model. Our data support the paradigm that the normal cellular response to high levels of PRL is growth suppression and furthermore, that PRL can counter oncogenic activity of Src. The ability of PRL to inhibit growth under normal conditions is dependent on a CAAX motif that is required to localize PRL to the apical edge of the lateral membrane. However, PRL lacking the CAAX motif can still associate indiscriminately with the plasma membrane and retains its ability to inhibit Src function. We propose that PRL binds to other membrane-localized proteins that are effectors of Src or to Src itself. This first examination of PRL in a model organism demonstrates that PRL performs as a tumor suppressor and underscores the necessity of identifying the conditions that enable it to transform into an oncogene in cancer.
