Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous fixation and open reduction internal fixation for patella fractures: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) has long been the conventional procedure for managing displaced patella fracture. This surgical approach has certain drawbacks, which might affect clinical outcomes and patient prognosis. Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation (MIPF) was proposed to overcome these disadvantages. Few in-depth investigations have been performed to determine the superiority of MIPF over ORIF. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of MIPF and ORIF for patella fractures. METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for relevant studies from November 26 to December 17, 2020. Non-English publications and pediatric orthopedic articles were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager, version 5.4, with mean differences (MDs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were the pain score, knee range of motion, and joint functionality. The secondary outcomes were the surgical time, complications, and implant removal rate. RESULTS: Six articles with a total of 304 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that patients with MIPF had a significantly reduced pain score (MD = - 1.30, 95% CI = - 1.77 to -0.82; p < 0.00001) and increased knee extension angles (MD = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.18 to 1.25; p = 0.009) at 3-month follow-up. Furthermore, knee flexion angles (MD = 8.96, 95% CI = 5.81 to 12.1; p < 0.00001) and joint functionality (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.86; p = 0.001) had statistically improved at 2 years. However, no difference was observed between MIPF and ORIF with regard to the surgical time. The risk of complications (OR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.18; p < 0.00001) and implant removal rate (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.57; p = 0.003) were significantly lower with MIPF than with ORIF. CONCLUSIONS: MIPF is more favorable than ORIF in terms of the pain score, knee range of motion, joint functionality, complications, and implant removal rate. Thus, it can be adopted as an alternative to ORIF.

Effectiveness of N-acetylcysteine in Treating Clinical Symptoms of Substance Abuse and Dependence: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is believed to reduce the clinical symptoms among individuals with substance abuse or dependence. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of NAC in treating substance abuse and dependence. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov registry, and the Cochrane Library were searched for trials published before June 2020. RESULTS: A total of 16 trials were analyzed. The treatment effectiveness domains assessed in this study were craving and depressive symptoms, withdrawal syndrome, adverse events, and smoking frequency. Standardized mean difference (SMD), weighted mean difference (WMD), and odds ratio (OR) were used for evaluation where appropriate. A significant decrease in craving symptoms was observed in the NAC treatment group compared with the control group (SMD, -0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.21 to 0.21). When withdrawal and depressive symptoms were considered as a single domain, the NAC treatment group demonstrated a significantly higher overall improvement than the control group (SMD, -0.35; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.06). No between-group differences in term of the OR of adverse events (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.68 to 2.06) and a non-significant trend toward reduction in smoking frequency was observed in the NAC treatment group compared with the control group (WMD, -3.09; 95% CI, -6.50 to 0.32). CONCLUSION: NAC provides certain noticeable benefits in attenuating substance craving and might help alleviate depressive symptoms and withdrawal syndrome. Precautious measures should be considered when using NAC although no difference in adverse effects was found between NAC treatment and control group.