Efficacy and safety of early versus delayed reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate the efficacy and safety of early versus delayed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries based on the different cut-off values of the timing of operation. METHODS: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature, and Wanfang Digital Periodical database were searched from inception to November 2022 without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CSs) comparing early ACLR with delayed ACLR for ACL injuries were included. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies (10 RCTs and 14 CSs) were included. According to the information from included studies, 3 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after ACL injuries were considered as the cut-off values of early and delayed ACLR. When 4 weeks were considered as the cut-off value, early ACLR could significantly improve Lysholm score, IKDC score and VAS score at 6 and 12 months postoperatively and decrease the incidence of adverse events compared with delayed ACLR (P < 0.05). However, no statistically significant difference in positive rate of Lachman test and incidence of meniscus injuries and chondral lesions between the two groups when 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months or 12 months after ACL injuries were considered as the cut-off values of early and delayed ACLR (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that early ACLR, especially conducted within 3-4 weeks after ACL injuries, may be more effective for improving knee function and relieving pain compared with delayed ACLR. More high-quality RCTs are warranted.

Methodological Quality and Risk of Bias of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Stem Cells for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Clinical guidelines need high-quality studies to support clinical decision making, in which the evidence often was collected from systematic reviews (SRs) and/or meta-analyses (MAs). At present, the methodological quality and risk of bias (RoB) of SRs/MAs on stem cell therapy for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) has been poorly investigated. This study aims to strictly evaluate the methodological quality and RoB in SRs/MAs of stem cell therapy for KOA. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases) were searched, from inception to October 5, 2021. SRs/MAs involving randomized control trials or cohort studies on stem cell therapy for the treatment of KOA were included. The methodological quality and RoB were assessed using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tool, respectively. In total, 22 SRs/MAs were included. According to the results obtained by AMSTAR 2 tool, all SRs/MAs were rated as "Critically low." Main methodological weaknesses were as follows: up to 81.82% did not meet protocol registration requirements, only 13.64% provided a list of excluded studies and justification, and 13.64% investigated and discussed the publication bias. ROBIS-based RoB assessment showed that all the SRs/MAs were rated as "High." Besides, the lack of following the implementation of the PRISMA reporting guideline seems to reduce the methodological quality of the studies. The overall methodological quality of the SRs/MAs concerning the application of stem cell therapy in treating KOA is "Critically low," while the RoB is high. It is difficult to provide effective evidence for the formulation of guidelines for KOA treatment. We suggest that the relevant methodological quality assessment should be carried out in the future before the SRs/MAs are used as clinical evidence. In addition, it may be necessary for many journals to include the checklist with a submitted article. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021246924.

Efficacy and Safety of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We critically evaluated the efficacy and safety of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the Web of Science Core Collection, Chinese Biomedical Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Digital Periodicals, and Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals were searched from their inception to February 2021. Randomized controlled trials and retrospective or prospective cohort studies (CSs) comparing OLIF and TLIF for DLS were included. A meta-analysis was conducted, if possible. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in the statistical analysis. The pooled results of the CSs showed no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in pain relief at 3 or 6 months of follow-up and functional improvement at 1 or 3 months of follow-up in DLS patients between those who had undergone OLIF versus TLIF. The pooled results of the CSs showed that OLIF could significantly improve the degree of lumbar lordosis, foraminal height, and disc height and decrease the intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, operative duration, bed rest time, and hospital length of stay (P < 0.05) compared with TLIF. The incidence of adverse events was not significantly different statistically between OLIF and TLIF. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study suggest that pain relief and functional improvement were not significantly different between OLIF and TLIF. Nevertheless, the use of OLIF might improve radiological outcomes and reduce intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, operative duration, bed rest duration, and hospital length of stay compared with TLIF. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trials are still required to confirm these findings.

Acupuncture for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture has been widely used in the clinical management of osteoarthritis of the knee (KOA). Many systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) have reported its effectiveness in relieving pain. This overview aimed to summarize SRs and MAs on the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for KOA and evaluate their methodological and evidence quality of the included SRs and MAs. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search for SRs and MAs in four Chinese and four international databases from their inception until August 2021. Two researchers independently searched the reviews, extracted the data, and cross-checked the data. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included SRs and MAs. The Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the quality of evidence for the outcomes of the included SRs and MAs. RESULTS: A total of 14 SRs and MAs were included. The evaluation results of the AMSTAR 2 tool showed that the methodological quality of all the 14 SRs and MAs was critically low. The principal causes are the lack of a pre-registration proposal and a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions, the report on the sources of funding, and the reasons for the study designs for inclusion. The results of the GRADE evaluation showed 25 of 46 outcomes were very low-level evidence. Seventeen were of low level, four were of moderate level and none were of high level. Most outcomes were downgraded in quality of evidence mainly because of publication bias and imprecision. CONCLUSION: The existing evidence suggests that acupuncture seems to be an effective and safe therapy for KOA. However, the deficiencies in the methodological quality and quality of evidence of the included SRs/MAs have limited the reliability of the conclusions. Therefore, further rigorous and comprehensive studies are warranted to verify the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture in KOA.