Background: The role of perioperative or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer is unclear. Emerging evidence such as the FOXTROT trial is challenging the conventional norm of upfront operation for these patients. However, these trials have yet to reach statistical significance. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (CNKI) and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of patients with locally advanced colon cancer were included. The intervention arm was neoadjuvant chemotherapies while the comparator arm was adjuvant chemotherapies. Studies which reported outcomes of interests included overall survival, disease-free survival, R0 resection rate, perioperative complications and adverse effects of chemotherapy were chosen. Results: We identified five eligible randomized trials and two observational studies, including 29,504 patients. Neoadjuvant therapies exhibited statistically significant improvement in overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) =0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-0.89, P=0.0005], and disease-free survival (HR =0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.95, P=0.02). R0 resection rate fell slightly short of significance [odds ratio (OR) =1.86, 95% CI: 0.95-3.62, P=0.07]. Risk of peri-operative complications did not differ between groups when examining abdominal infection [risk ratio (RR) =1.14, 95% CI: 0.59-2.18, P=0.70] and anastomotic leakage (RR =0.83, 95% CI: 0.53-1.31, P=0.42). No statistical differences in complications from chemotherapy were reported.Conclusions: This meta-analysis highlights the potential survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer, without an increase in surgical morbidity. Neoadjuvant or perioperative approaches may be considered an alternative to upfront surgery followed by chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer.
Background The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted healthcare institutions worldwide. Particularly, orthopedic departments had to adapt their operational models. Purpose This review aimed to quantify the reduction in surgical and outpatient caseloads, identify other significant trends and ascertain the impact of these trends on orthopedic residency training programs. Methods Medline and Embase were searched for articles describing case load for surgeries, outpatient clinic attendance, or emergency department (ED) visits. Statistical analysis of quantitative data was performed after a Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Results were pooled with random effects by DerSimonian and Laird model. When insufficient data was available, a systematic approach was used to present the results instead. Results A total of 23 studies were included in this study. The number of elective surgeries, trauma procedures and outpatient attendance decreased by 80% (2013/17400, 0.20, CI: 0.12 to 0.29), 47% (3887/17561, 0.53, CI: 0.37 to 0.69) and 63% (84174/123967, 0.37, CI: 0.24 to 0.51) respectively. During the pandemic, domestic injuries and polytrauma increased. Residency training was disrupted due to diminished clinical exposure and changing teaching methodologies. Additionally, residents had more duties which contributed to a lower quality of life. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has made an unprecedented impact on orthopedics departments worldwide. The slow return of orthopedic departments to normalcy and the compromised training of residents due to the pandemic points to an uncertain future for healthcare institutions worldwide, wherein the impact of this pandemic may yet still be felt far in the future.
Aim Interbody cages are commonly used to augment interbody fusion. Commonly used materials include titanium (Ti) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK), with their inherent differences. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare between the various clinical and radiological outcomes of Ti and PEEK interbody spinal cages. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical and radiological outcomes between Ti and PEEK interbody cages in patients undergoing spinal fusion was performed. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database were searched. All studies that compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent Ti and PEEK cages were included. Subgroup analyses was performed to differentiate between patients who had cervical and lumbar interbody fusion. Results A total of 11 articles were identified, with a total of 743 patients. Spinal fusion rates at final follow-up did not differ between Ti and PEEK cages (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.57-3.94, P = 0.41), although in patients undergoing lumbar fusion, Ti cages demonstrated superior fusion (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.05-4.28, P = 0.04). In patients with non-infective etiologies, Ti cages had a higher rate of cage subsidence (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.13-4.16, P = 0.02). Both types of cages had similar operating time, postoperative hematoma formation, neuropathic pain, segmental angle correction and postoperative clinical outcome improvement. ConclusionIn non-infective lumbar spine conditions, Ti cage may be the superior option due to the higher fusion rate. Level of evidence III.
Background: Meniscal allograft transplant (MAT) is an important treatment option for young patients with deficient menisci; however, there is a lack of consensus on the optimal method of allograft fixation. Hypothesis: The various methods of MAT fixation have measurable and significant differences in outcomes. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A single-arm meta-analysis of studies reporting graft failure, reoperations, and other clinical outcomes after MAT was performed. Studies were stratified by suture-only, bone plug, and bone bridge fixation methods. Proportionate rates of failure and reoperation for each fixation technique were pooled with a mixed-effects model, after which reconstruction of relative risks with confidence intervals was performed using the Katz logarithmic method. Results: A total of 2604 patients underwent MAT. Weighted mean follow-up was 4.3 years (95% CI, 3.2-5.6 years). During this follow-up period, graft failure rates were 6.2% (95% CI, 3.2%-11.6%) for bone plug fixation, 6.9% (95% CI, 4.5%-10.3%) for suture-only fixation, and 9.3% (95% CI, 6.2%-13.9%) for bone bridge fixation. Transplanted menisci secured using bone plugs displayed a lower risk of failure compared with menisci secured via bone bridges (RR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P = .02). Risks of failure were not significantly different when comparing suture fixation to bone bridge (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.06; P = .12) and bone plugs (RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02; P = .64). Allografts secured using bone plugs were at a lower risk of requiring reoperations compared with those secured using sutures (RR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.95; P < .001), whereas allografts secured using bone bridges had a higher risk of reoperation when compared with those secured using either sutures (RR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.19-1.38; P < .001) or bone plugs (RR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.32-1.51; P < .001). Improvements in Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores were comparable among the different groups. Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that bone plug fixation of transplanted meniscal allografts carries a lower risk of failure than the bone bridge method and has a lower risk of requiring subsequent operations than both suture-only and bone bridge methods of fixation. This suggests that the technique used in the fixation of a transplanted meniscal allograft is an important factor in the clinical outcomes of patients receiving MATs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.