Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Supplemental Posterior Instrumentation in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review. OBJECTIVES: Compare the outcomes of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and LLIF with supplemental posterior instrumentation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease by a Meta-analysis. METHODS: In this meta-analysis, we searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to Aug 2023. In this study, only study reporting stand-alone LLIF(stand-alone group) and LLIF with supplemental posterior instrumentation (posterior instrumentation group) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease and we excluded duplicate publications, research without full text, incomplete information or inability to conduct data extraction, animal experiments, reviews, and systematic reviews. STATA 15.1 software was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Among the 15 included articles, the total number of patients was 1177, with 469 patients (638 fused segments) in the standalone group and 708 patients (1046 fused segments) in the posterior instrumentation group. The posterior instrumentation group was better than stand-alone group with significant differences in fusion rate, cage subsidence rate,the restoration of disc height and segmental lordosis, the improvement of ODI, and reoperation rate. While, comparing with posterior instrumentation group,the stand-alone group had less intraoperative blood loss. CONCLUSIONS: Both stand-alone and instrumented LLIF were effective in improving the clinical outcomes of patients with lumbar degenerative disease. However, the stand-alone LLIF was associated with lower fusion rate, inferior maintenance of indirect decompression, and higher reoperation rate due to high-grade cage subsidence. For patients with risk factors of high-grade cage subsidence, the LLIF with posterior instrumentation may be a better choice.

Network pharmacology-based and molecular docking-based analysis of You-Gui-Yin for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

You-Gui-Yin (YGY) is a classic prescription for warming up kidney-Yang and filling in kidney essence in traditional Chinese medicine, and has been used to treat osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) effectively. However, the underlying mechanisms are still unknown. This study is aimed at exploring the possible mechanisms of action of the YGY in the treatment of ONFH based on network pharmacology and molecular docking. TCMSP was used to screen the active components and targets of YGY. The disease targets of ONFH were collected in several public databases. The protein-protein interaction (PPI) Network was constructed using the STRING platform. The Metascape database platform was used for Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analyses. The key active components and core target proteins of YGY in the treatment of ONFH were verified by the molecular docking. 120 active components were obtained from YGY, among which 73 components were hit by the 117 drug-disease intersection targets. Key effective components included quercetin, kaempferol, beta-sitosterol, glycitein, beta-carotene, and so on. Core target proteins included ALB, AKT1, TNF, IL6, TP53, and so on. According to GO and KEGG analyses, there were 1762 biological processes, 94 cellular component, 138 molecular function and 187 signaling pathways involved. we selected the top 20 biological processes (BP), cellular components (CC), molecular functions (MF) and signaling pathways to draw the heat maps, showing that Lipid and atherosclerosis signaling pathway, IL-17 signaling pathway, HIF-1 signaling pathway, relaxin signaling pathway and MAPK signaling pathway and other pathways may play a key role in the treatment of ONFH by YGY. The results of molecular docking showed that key effective components and corresponding core target proteins exhibited the good binding activity. YGY can treat ONFH through multicomponents, multitargets, and multipathways, which provides a reference for the subsequent research, development of targeted drugs and clinical application.

Cement-augmented pedicle screw for thoracolumbar degenerative diseases with osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cement-augmentation pedicle screws have been widely used in spinal internal fixation surgery combined with osteoporosis in recent years, which can significantly improve the fixation strength, but compared with conventional methods, whether it has more advantages is still inconclusive of evidencebased medicine. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of cement-augmented pedicle screw in the treatment of thoracolumbar degenerative diseases with osteoporosis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published from the establishment of the database up until June 2023. We included studies that concerning the cement-augmented pedicle screw and the traditional pedicle screw placement for thoracolumbar degenerative diseases with osteoporosis. We excluded repeated publication, researches without full text, incomplete information or inability to conduct data extraction and animal experiments, case report, reviews and systematic reviews. STATA 15.1 software was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The sample size of patients were totally 881, of which, 492 patients in cement-augmented screw group and 389 patients in conventional screw group. Meta-analysis results showed that Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score (WMD = 1.69, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.22), intervertebral space height (WMD = 1.66, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.29) and post-operation fusion rate (OR = 2.80, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.25) were higher in the cement-augmented screw group than those in the conventional screw group. Operation time was longer in the cement-augmented screw group than that in the conventional screw group (WMD = 15.47, 95% CI 1.25 to 29.70). Screw loosening rate was lower in the cement-augmented screw group than those in the conventional screw group (OR = 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.22). However, hospitalization time, intraoperative blood loss and Visual analog scale (VAS) score were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional pedicle screw placement, cement-augmented pedicle screw is more effective in the treatment of osteoporotic thoracolumbar degenerative disease by improving fusion rate and interbody height, reducing the incidence of screw loosening, and elevating long-term efficacy.

Surgical treatment of specific Unified Classification System B fractures: potentially destabilising lesser trochanter periprosthetic fractures.

To investigate the clinical effects of specific Unified Classification System B (UCS B)-lesser trochanter periprosthetic fractures and determine whether they occur only with non-cemented stems. A retrospective analysis of 28 patients with specific UCS B2 fractures who underwent two surgical treatments, longer stem revision and internal fixation (LSRIF) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), was performed. The patients were assessed at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and annually thereafter. Fracture healing, complications, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and the Short Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36) quality of life score were assessed at each follow-up. At the time of the last follow-up, seven patients had been lost: three were lost to contact, two died, and two were hospitalised elsewhere and unavailable for follow-up. The remaining 21 patients were followed for an average of 49.3 ± 15.4 (range: 24-74.4) months. Their average fracture healing time was 13.5 ± 1.1 (12-15.4) weeks. Complications included three cases (10.71%) of thrombus, one (3.57%) of heart failure, and one (3.57%) of pulmonary infection. There were no revisions due to prosthesis loosening, subsidence, or infection. At the last follow-up, the HHS, SF-36 mental score, and SF-36 physical score were recorded, LSRIF vs. ORIF (82.9 ± 6.6 vs. 74.7 ± 3.9, p = 0.059; 50.9 ± 7.6 vs. 38 ± 1.4, p = 0.012, and 51.7 ± 8.4 vs. 39.7 ± 3.4, p = 0.032, respectively). Specific UCS B2 fractures mostly occur with non-cemented stems. LSRIF with cables is the main treatment, while ORIF is an option for those elderly in poor condition.

Efficacy and safety of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since there are currently no systematic evidence-based medical data on the efficacy and safety of PECD, this meta-analysis pooled data from studies that reported the efficacy or safety of PECD for cervical disc herniation to examine the efficacy, recurrence and safety of using PECD to treat cervical disc herniation. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from inception to July 2022. Nine nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) that reported the efficacy or safety of percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy for cervical disc herniation were included. We excluded duplicate publications, studies without full text, studies with incomplete information, studies that did not enable us to conduct data extraction, animal experiments and reviews. STATA 15.1 software was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The proportions of excellent and good treatment results after PECD for CDH were 39% (95% CI: 31-48%) and 47% (95% CI: 34-59%), respectively. The pooled results showed that the VAS scores at 1 week post-operatively (SMD = -2.55, 95% CI: - 3.25 to - 1.85) and at the last follow-up (SMD = - 4.30, 95% CI: - 5.61 to - 3.00) after PECD for cervical disc herniation were significantly lower than the pre-operative scores. The recurrence rate of neck pain and the incidence of adverse events after PECD for cervical disc herniation were 3% (95% CI: 1-6%) and 5% (95% CI: 2-9%), respectively. Additionally, pooled results show that the operative time (SMD = - 3.22, 95% CI: - 5.21 to - 1.43) and hospital stay (SMD = - 1.75, 95% CI: - 2.67to - 0.84) were all significantly lower for PECD than for ACDF. The pooled results also showed that the proportion of excellent treatment results was significantly higher for PECD than for ACDF (OR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.06-4.96). CONCLUSION: PECD has a high success rate in the treatment of CHD and can relieve neck pain, and the recurrence rate and the incidence of adverse events are low. In addition, compared with ACDF, PECD has a higher rate of excellent outcomes and a lower operative time and hospital stay. PECD may be a better option for treating CHD.

Associations Between TNFAIP3 Gene Polymorphisms and Rheumatoid Arthritis Risk: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A host of studies investigated the associations between tumor necrosis factor alpha inducible protein 3 (TNFAIP3) gene rs2230926 and rs5029937 polymorphisms and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) susceptibility, but with conflicting findings. Therefore, we explored whether TNFAIP3 gene rs2230926 and rs5029937 polymorphisms are associated with RA by meta-analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed out a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Elsevier, Embase, and CNKI databases to identify relevant studies. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the strength of the associations. RESULTS: Literature search identified 10 case-control studies involving 18,014 cases and 20,112 controls in this meta-analysis. Our data supported an association between TNFAIP3 gene rs2230926 and rs5029937 polymorphisms and RA risk. Stratification analysis of ethnicity indicated that rs5029937 polymorphism increased the risk of RA among Caucasians, while rs2230926 polymorphism increased the risk of RA among Asians and Caucasians. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this meta-analysis demonstrates that TNFAIP3 gene polymorphisms (rs2230926 and rs5029937) are associated with the increased risk of RA.

The Effect of Gabapentin on Acute Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin versus placebo for pain control after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).In December 2015, a systematic computer-based search was conducted in the Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Google, and Chinese Wanfang databases. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement criteria. The primary endpoint was the visual analogue scale (VAS) score after TKA with rest or mobilization at 24 and 48 hours, representing the efficacy of pain control after TKA. Cumulative morphine consumption via patient controlled anesthesia (PCA) was also assessed to determine the morphine-spare effect. Complications such as dizziness, pruritus, vomiting, nausea, and sedation were also compiled to assess the safety of gabapentin. Stata 12.0 software was used for the meta-analysis. After testing for publication bias and heterogeneity across studies, the data were aggregated for random-effects modeling whenever necessary.Six studies involving 769 patients met the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis revealed that gabapentin resulted in superior pain relief compared to the control group in terms of VAS score with rest at 24 hours (mean difference [MD] = -3.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.16 to -0.77; P = 0.012) and at 48 hours postoperatively (MD = -2.25; 95% CI -4.21 to -0.30; P = 0.024). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to the VAS score at 24 hours postoperatively (MD = 1.05; 95% CI -3.31 to 5.42; P = 0.636) or at 48 hours (MD = 1.71; 95% CI -0.74 to 4.15; P = 0.171). These results indicated that the perioperative administration of gabapentin decreases the cumulative morphine consumption via PCA at 24 hours (MD = -8.28; 95% CI -12.57 to -3.99; P = 0.000) and 48 hours (MD = -4.50; 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61; P = 0.221). Furthermore, gabapentin decreased the rate of postoperative dizziness (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI 0.47-0.99, P = 0.044) and the occurrence of pruritus (RR, 0.50; 95% CI 0.37-0.67, P = 0.000).Based on the current meta-analysis, gabapentin exerts an analgesic and opioid-sparing effect in acute postoperative pain management without increasing the rate of dizziness and pruritus.