ABSTRACT
Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by Meta-analysis.Methods:PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI and Wanfang Data were searched from their establishment to January 2021 for all the studies on UBE and MED in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The data extracted were authors, year of publication, study design, subject characteristics, sample size, surgical protocol, age, sex ratio, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, complications, visual analogue scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The Meta-analysis was conducted with software Revman 5.3 to analyze the operation time, hospital stay, complication rate, waist and lower extremity VAS scores and ODI scores at preoperation, early postoperation and the last follow-up. The quality of the case-control studies included was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) while the methodological quality and risk of bias of the randomized controlled studies (RCT) included were evaluated using the Cochrane Bias Risk Assessment Tool.Results:Finally, 7 studies were included, 6 in English and one in Chinese. There were 2 RCTs and 5 case-control studies. There were 251 patients in the UBE group and 224 patients in the MED group. Compared with the MED group, the UBE group had a significantly shorter hospital stay ( MD=-2.28, 95% CI: -3.42 to -1.14, P<0.001), and a significantly lower VAS score for early postoperative low back pain ( MD=-0.80, 95% CI:-1.44 to -0.16, P=0.01). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in operation time, complication rate, waist VAS scores at preoperation or the last follow-up, lower extremity VAS or ODI scores at preoperation, early postoperation or the last follow-up, or dural dilatation area ( P>0.05). Conclusions:In the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, compared with MED, UBE is superior in early relief of low back pain and hospital stay after operation, but shows no significant difference in long-term efficacy or safety.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Hospital staff are vulnerable and at high risk of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection. The aim of this study was to monitor the psychological distress in hospital staff and examine the relationship between the psychological distress and possible causes during the COVID-19 epidemic. METHODS: An online survey was conducted from February 1 to February 14, 2020. Hospital staff from five national COVID-19 designated hospitals in Chongqing participated. Data collected included demographics and stress responses to COVID-19: 1) the impact of event scale to measure psychological stress reactions; 2) generalizedanxietydisorder 7 to measure anxiety symptoms; 3) Patient Health Questionnaire 9 to measure depression symptoms; 4) Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale to measure obsessive-compulsive symptoms (OCS); and 5) Patient Health Questionnaire 15 to measure somatization symptoms. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors that were correlated with psychological distress. RESULTS: Hospital staff that participated in this study were identified as either doctors or nurses. A total of 456 respondents completed the questionnaires with a response rate of 91.2%. The mean age was 30.67 ± 7.48 years (range, 17 to 64 years). Of all respondents, 29.4% were men. Of the staff surveyed, 43.2% had stress reaction syndrome. The highest prevalence of psychological distress was OCS (37.5%), followed by somatization symptoms (33.3%), anxiety symptoms (31.6%), and depression symptoms (29.6%). Univariate analyses indicated that female subjects, middle aged subjects, subjects in the low income group, and subjects working in isolation wards were prone to experience psychological distress. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed "Reluctant to work or considered resignation" (odds ratio [OR], 5.192; 95%CI, 2.396-11.250; P < .001), "Afraid to go home because of fear of infecting family" (OR, 2.099; 95%CI, 1.299-3.391; P = .002) "Uncertainty about frequent modification of infection and control procedures" (OR, 1.583; 95%CI, 1.061-2.363; P = .025), and"Social support" (OR, 1.754; 95%CI, 1.041-2.956; P = .035) were correlated with psychological reactions. "Reluctant to work or considered resignation" and "Afraid to go home because of fear of infecting family" were associated with a higher risk of symptoms of Anxiety (OR, 3.622; 95% CI, 1.882-6.973; P < .001; OR, 1.803; 95% CI, 1.069-3.039; P = .027), OCS (OR, 5.241; 95% CI, 2.545-10.793; P < .001; OR, 1.999; 95% CI, 1.217-3.282; P = .006) and somatization (OR, 5.177; 95% CI, 2.595-10.329; P < .001; OR, 1.749; 95% CI, 1.051-2.91; P = .031). "Stigmatization and rejection in neighborhood because of hospital work", "Reluctant to work or considered resignation" and "Uncertainty about frequent modification of infection and control procedures" were associated with a higher risk of symptoms of Depression(OR, 2.297; 95% CI, 1.138-4.637; P = .020; OR, 3.134; 95% CI, 1.635-6.006; P = .001; OR, 1.645; 95% CI, 1.075-2.517; P = .022). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital staff showed different prevalence of psychological distress during the COVID-19 epidemic. Our study confirmed the severity of negative psychological distress on hospital staff and identified factors associated with negative psychological distress that can be used to provide valuable information for psychological interventions to improve the mental health of vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 epidemic.