Evaluation and analysis of anxiety and depression symptoms for college students during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The mental health of students is affected by COVID-19. We aim to evaluate the anxiety and depression symptoms among college students during COVID-19 pandemic, analyze the influence factors that contribute to college students' anxiety and depression symptoms, and provide some suggestions for improving the mental health of college students. METHODS: With 179 college students participating, an online questionnaire consisting of a general questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) was conducted in universities in Shanghai. The anxiety and depression symptoms among college students were evaluated using GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scales, and influence factors were analyzed using an unordered multi-class Logistic regression model. RESULTS: The reliability and validity of the GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scales were good (reliability ≥ 0.9, validity = 100%). The incidence of anxiety was 32.4%, of which were 23.5%, 8.4%, and 0.6% in mild, moderate, and severe, respectively; and the incidence of depression was 46.40%, of which in mild, moderate, moderate to severe, and severe were 28.5%, 10.1%, 7.3%, and 0.6%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that male students with strong psychological quality, who were not easily affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, who received less negative or false information, and who had a strong grasp of psychology and related knowledge were less likely to suffer from mild or moderate anxiety symptoms [OR (95% CI) 0.18 (0.04, 0.81), 0.12 (0.05, 0.33), 0.23 (0.06, 0.89) and 0.07 (0.01, 0.74)]. Furthermore, college students who were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic were less likely to suffer from mild, moderate, and moderate to severe depression symptoms [OR (95% CI) 0.23 (0.08, 0.65), 0.22 (0.05, 0.93), 0.10 (0.02, 0.54)]. CONCLUSION: The GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scales are suitable for evaluating anxiety and depression symptoms in college students. The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a high incidence of anxiety and depression symptoms among college students, although gender and mental state fluctuations during the pandemic, negative and false information, and exposure to psychology and related courses were the main influencing factors.

Is reduction or arthrodesis in situ the optimal choice for adolescent spondylolisthesis?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Controversy remains about the choice of reduction or arthrodesis in situ for surgical management of adolescent spondylolisthesis, while no systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine which one is the optimal surgical choice. The study aims to compare outcomes of the two surgical strategies for adolescent spondylolisthesis. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, OVID/MEDLINE, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang with a cutoff date of May 21st, 2021. Search terms included "spondylolisthesis", "in situ" and "reduction". Included studies had following characteristics: (I) participants: adolescents with spondylolisthesis. (II) Intervention: reduction following arthrodesis. (III) Control: arthrodesis in situ. (IV) Outcomes: postoperative clinical and/or radiographic results. (V) Study design: randomized controlled trial (RCT), cohort or case-control study. Data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.4, and risk of bias assessment of studies was assessed via Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS). RESULTS: Six cohort studies were included, with NOS scores of all ≥6. There were no significant differences regarding operative time [mean difference (MD) =152.62; 95% [confidence interval (CI)]: -54.02 to 359.26; I2=96%; P=0.15], blood loss (MD =786.61; 95% CI: -646.82 to 2,220.04; I2=90%; P=0.28), patient satisfaction (MD =1.98; 95% CI: 0.72 to 5.43; I2=0%; P=0.18), neurological complications (MD =1.02; 95% CI: 0.25 to 4.18; I2=0%; P=0.98), or total complications (MD =0.59; 95% CI: 0.29 to 1.19; I2=0%; P=0.14). However, patients undergoing reduction achieved better radiographic results: fusion rate (MD =3.09; 95% CI: 1.22 to 7.84; I2=40%; P=0.02), postoperative pseudarthrosis (MD =0.35; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.79; I2=24%; P=0.01), percentage of slippage (MD =-20.58; 95% CI: -26.32 to -14.84; I2=0%; P<0.00001), and slipping angle (MD =-10.05; 95% CI: -14.55 to -5.54; I2=0%; P<0.0001). And no overt publication bias was found in the studies. DISCUSSION: Both reduction and arthrodesis in situ in adolescent spondylolisthesis are safe and demonstrate good clinical outcomes. However, reduction showed better radiographic results and was associated with less pseudarthrosis, better relief of disability, and improvements in self-image. In conclusion, reduction may be the optimal choice compared with arthrodesis in situ, but further verification of these findings is recommended using RCTs.

The anterior and traverse cage can provide optimal biomechanical performance for both traditional and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a well-established surgical treatment for patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease; however, the optimal position for the interbody fusion cage in TLIF procedures for reducing cage-related complications remains uncertain. The present study aims to compare the biomechanical effects between different cage positions in TLIF and percutaneous endoscopic-TLIF (PE-TLIF). METHOD: An intact finite element model of L3-L5 from computed tomography images of a 25-year-old healthy male without any lumbar disease was reconstructed and validated. TLIF and PE-TLIF were performed on L4-L5 with bilateral pedicle screws fixation. Two surgical finite element models were subjected to loads with six degrees of freedom. The range of motion (ROM) and von Mises stress of the implantations and endplates were measured for the anterior, middle, and posterior district and the traverse or oblique direction of the cage respectively. RESULTS: As the cage was implanted forward, the ROMs in the fused L4-L5 segments and the von Mises stress of the cage and endplates decreased while the von Mises stress of the screws increased; this was also shown in the traverse cage when compared with the oblique cage (A-90-compared with A-45- had a 31.3%, 1.7%, 12.6%, and 5.7% decrease in FL, EX, LB and AR). The ROMs (TLIF A-45 increase of 80.8%, 23.8%, and 12.2% in FL, EX, and LB when compared with PE-TLIF), cage stress, and endplate stress of PE-TLIF were lower than those of TLIF. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the ROM of the fusion segments, implanting the cage in the anterior district in the traverse direction can effectively enhance the fusion segment stiffness, thus contributing to the stability of the lumbar spine after fusion. It can also cause less cage stress and endplate stress, which indicates its beneficial effect in avoiding cage injury or subsidence. However, the higher stress of the pedicle screws and rods indicates higher failure risk. PE-TLIF had better biomechanical performance than TLIF. Therefore, it is recommended that the surgeon implant the cage in the anterior district of the L5 vertebra's upper endplate in the traverse direction using the PE-TLIF technique.