Identification of Key Pathways and Genes in L4 Dorsal Root Ganglion (DRG) After Sciatic Nerve Injury via Microarray Analysis.

Background: Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) has devastating consequences. Dorsal root ganglion as a pivotal locus participates in the process of neuropathic pain and nerve regeneration. In recent years, gene sequencing technology has seen rapid rise in the biomedicine field. So, we attempt to gain insight into in the mechanism of neuropathic pain and nerve regeneration in the transcriptional level and to explore novel genes through bioinformatics analysis. Methods: The gene expression profiles of GSE96051 were downloaded from GEO database. The gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathway (KEGG) enrichment analyses were performed, and protein-protein interaction (PPI) network of the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) was constructed by Cytoscape software. Results: Our results showed that both IL-6 and Jun genes and the signaling pathway of MAPK, apoptosis, P53 present their vital modulatory role in nerve regeneration and neuropathic pain. Noteworthy, 13 hub genes associated with neuropathic pain and nerve regeneration, including Ccl12, Ppp1r15a, Cdkn1a, Atf3, Nts, Dusp1, Ccl7, Csf, Gadd45a, Serpine1, Timp1 were rarely reported in PubMed database, these genes may provide us the new orientation in experimental research and clinical study. Conclusions: Our results may provide more deep insight into the mechanism and a promising therapeutic target. The next step is to put our emphasis on an experiment level and to verify the novel genes from 13 hub genes.

Retraction Note: Comparison of two FDA-approved interspinous spacers for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: Superion versus X-STOP-a meta-analysis from five randomized controlled trial studies.

The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article [1] because of an error in the meta analysis. Re-examination of the data has showed that there is only one published randomized controlled trial comparing Superion with XStop. Due to a misunderstanding of the published clinical data, the conclusions drawn in the article are incorrect. Author Xing Yu approved this retraction, none of the other authors replied to correspondence from the publisher about this retraction.

Comparison of the adverse events of anterior cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In the current surgical therapeutic regimen for symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease, both anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) are still widely accepted. However, many complications exist in both surgeries. Therefore, this study aims to compare the adverse events between ACDR and ACDF, and provide vital evidence-based guidance for spine surgeons and designers to evaluation of prognosis and improvement of dynamic devices. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis that will be performed according to the PRISMA. The electric database of PubMed, Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library will be systematic search. A standard data form will be used to extract the data of included studies. We will assess the studies according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and perform analysis in RevMan 5.3 software. Fixed effects models will be used for homogeneity data, while random-effects will be used for heterogeneity data. The overall effect sizes will be determined as weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes and relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. RESULT: The results of this study will be disseminated via international or national conferences, or submit to peer-reviewed journal in spinal field. CONCLUSION: The conclusion of this study will provide key evidence-based guidance for spine surgeons and designers to the evaluation of prognosis and improvement of dynamic devices.

Comparison of two FDA-approved interspinous spacers for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: Superion versus X-STOP-a meta-analysis from five randomized controlled trial studies.

BACKGROUND: Decompressive laminectomy (DI) is a standard operation for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patient with severe claudication symptoms for many years. However, patients whose symptom severity does not meet undergoing invasive surgery make therapeutic options into dilemma. Interspinous spacers (ISP) bridge the gap between surgical interventions and CC in management of LSS. In our study, we aim to systematically assess the two FDA-approved interspinous spacers for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: Superion versus X-STOP. METHODS: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve clinical trials concerning the comparison between Superion and X-STOP in treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis before April 2017. The following outcome measures were extracted: (1) Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) patient satisfaction score, (2) axial pain severity, (3) extremity pain severity, (4) back-specific functional impairment, (5) reoperation, and (6) complication. The data analysis was conducted with Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1118 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that the Superion group is superior to X-STOP in axial pain severity (SMD: 0.03; 95% CI 0.15, 0.45; p < 0.0001, I2 = 41%, p = 0.16), ZCQ patient satisfaction score (SMD: 0.23; 95% CI 0.08, 0.38; p = 0.002, I2 = 0%, p = 0.61). However, Superion group showed similarity outcome in extremity pain severity (SMD: 0.18; 95% CI - 0.06, 0.43; p = 0.14, I2 = 62%, p = 0.05), back-specific functional impairment (SMD: 0.04; 95% CI - 0.10, 0.19; p = 0.56, I2 = 0%, p = 0.77), reoperation rate (RR: 1.10; 95% CI 0.82, 1.48; p = 0.51, I2 = 19%, p = 0.30), and complication (RR: 0.98; 95% CI 0.63, 1.53; p = 0.92, I2 = 0%, p = 0.83). CONCLUSION: Both the Superion and X-STOP interspinous spacers can relieve symptoms of LSS. In addition, the Superion spacer may represent a promising spacer for patient with LSS. As we know, the effectiveness and safety of ISP is still considered investigational and unfavor clinical results in the medical literature may continue to limit the appeal of IPS to many surgeons in the future. However, because of the advantage of IPS technique, it will win a wide place in the future degenerative lumbar microsurgery.

What is the superior surgical strategy for bi-level cervical spondylosis-anterior cervical disc replacement or anterior cervical decompression and fusion?: A meta-analysis from 11 studies.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, anterior cervical artificial disc replacement (ACDR) has achieved favorable outcomes in treatment for patients with single-level cervical spondylosis. However, It is still controversial that whether or not it will become a potent therapeutic alternation in treating 2 contiguous levels cervical spondylosis compared with anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of ACDR and ACDF in patients with 2 contiguous levels cervical spondylosis. METHODS: According to the computer-based online search, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for articles published before July 1, 2017 were searched. The following outcome measures were extracted: neck disability index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS) neck, VAS arm, Short Form (SF)-12 mental component summary (MCS), SF-12 physical component summary (PCS), overall clinical success (OCS), patient satisfaction (PS), device-related adverse event (DRAE), subsequent surgical intervention (SSI), neurological deterioration (ND), and adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Methodological quality was evaluated independently by 2 reviewers using the Furlan for randomized controlled trial (RCT) and MINORS scale for clinical controlled trials (CCT). The chi-squared test and Higgin I test were used to evaluate the heterogeneity. A P < .10 for the chi-squared test or I values exceeding 50% indicated substantial heterogeneity and a random-effect model was applied; otherwise, a fixed-effect model was used. All quantitative data were analyzed by the Review Manager 5.2 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). RESULTS: Nine RCTs and 2 CCT studies containing 2715 patients were included for this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that the ACDR group is superior to ACDF in NDI, VAS neck, PCS score, OCS, PS, DRAE, ASD, and SSI. However, the pooled results indicate that there was no significant difference in the ND, VAS arm and in MCS score. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis suggests that for bi-level cervical spondylosis, ACDR appears to provide superior clinical effectiveness and safety effects than ACDF. In the future, more high-quality RCTs are warranted to enhance this conclusion.

[Relationship between inflammatory cytokines of IL-1ß and TNF-α and intervertebral disc degeneration].

The inflammatory cytokines of IL-1ß and TNF-α participate in the process of intervertebral disc degeneration is focused by the spine surgeons. Inflammatory cytokines represented by IL-1ß and TNF-α act as the key factors in the process of intervertebral disc degeneration resulting in low back pain and radicular symptoms. Annulus fibrosus and nucleus pulposus can secrete TNF-α and IL-1ß under the stimulation of mechanical injury, overstressed, genetic susceptibility and infection. The mechanism of inflammatory cytokines in intervertebral disc degeneration needs further investigation. The emphasis of researches will be on the inflammatory cytokines in the regulation of mechanism in the intervertebral disc degeneration, molecular targeted therapy, cell signaling pathways and the best time of anti-inflammatory therapy providing more evidence in the clinical application.