BackgroundThis meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the postoperative clinical outcomes and safety of the direct anterior approach (DAA) versus posterior approach (PA) in total hip arthroplasty (THA).MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google databases from inception to June 2018 to select studies that compared the DAA and PA for THA. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Outcomes included Harris hip score at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 1 year; VAS at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h; incision length, operation time, postoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complications (intraoperative fracture, postoperative dislocation, heterotopic ossification (HO), and groin pain).ResultsNine RCTs totaling 754 THAs (DAA group = 377, PA group = 377) met the criteria to be included in this meta-analysis. The present meta-analysis indicated that, compared with PA group, DAA group was associated with an increase of the Harris hip score at the 2-week and 4-week time points. No significant difference was found between DAA and PA groups of the Harris hip scores at 12 weeks, 1 year length of hospital stay (p > 0.05). DAA group was associated with a reduction of the VAS at 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h with statistical significance (p < 0.05). What is more, DAA was associated with a reduction of the incision length and postoperative blood loss (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the operation time and complications (intraoperative fracture, postoperative dislocation, HO, and groin pain).ConclusionIn THA patients, compared with PA, DAA was associated with an early functional recovery and less pain scores. What is more, DAA was associated with shorter incision length and blood loss.

No abstract

Objective Endovascular stent-assistant angioplasty (ESAA) is a valid treatment for symptomatic vertebrobasilar artery stenosis (SVAS), but the long-term effect and the improvement of condition compared with medication treatment are unknown. This study investigated the long-term efficacy of ESAA in patients with moderate and severe SVAS, and compared the efficacy with medication treatment. Materials and methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical data of 43 patients with moderate and severe SVAS hospitalized in our department. According to different treatment methods they were divided into 29 cases in an ESAA group and 14 cases in a medication treatment group. During the follow-up period, the degree of vascular stenosis, vascular blood flow velocity, restenosis rate, recovery of neurological function and the incidence of cerebral ischemic events in the two groups were analyzed. Results The average clinical follow-up period was 89.4 ± 10.2 months. Before treatment, the stenosis rate and average blood flow velocity of the two groups were not statistically significant ( p > 0.05). During the follow-up period, both were significantly lower than the medication treatment group ( p < 0.01). In the ESAA group, three cases of stent stenosis, and three cases in the medication treatment group were completely occluded. The total ischemic events in ESAA group were three cases, compared with nine cases in the medication treatment group; the difference was statistically significant ( p < 0.05). Conclusion ESAA has a long-term effect in the treatment of symptomatic moderate and severe vertebrobasilar artery stenosis. It is superior to medication therapy in preventing posterior circulation ischemia (PCI), but a larger sample size is still needed to confirm the study.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical results of the direct anterior approach (DAA) and posterolateral approach (PLA) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients.Methods: From January 2017 to September 2019, 80 patients who received primary THA in our hospital were retrospectively selected based on the propensity score matching (PSM) method. Baseline characteristics of patients who underwent the DAA and PLA were collected. Moreover, the incision length, intraoperative blood loss, operative time, length of stay, and Harris hip score were compared between patients in the two groups. The CK level was used to assess muscle damage between patients in the DAA and PLA groups. The complications of these two approaches were also evaluated at patients' 12-month follow-up evaluation.Results: There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between patients in the two groups (p > 0.05). The patients in the DAA group had a shorter incision length (9.2 AE 0.2 vs 14.7 AE 0.5, respectively; p < 0.05) and shorter length of hospital stay (9.5 AE 0.7 vs 12.9 AE 0.8, respectively, p < 0.05) than patients in the PLA group. Moreover, the DAA was associated with a decrease in intraoperative blood loss compared with the PLA (109.1 AE 12.6 vs 305.1 AE 14.1 ml, respectively, p < 0.05). However, the operation time was longer in patients in the DAA group (130.7 AE 1.7) than in patients in the PLA group (112.6 AE 1.3 min, p < 0.05). The CK level of patients in the DAA group was lower than that of patients in the PLA group (p < 0.05). The CK level at 48 h post-surgery was negatively correlated with the Harris hip scores at 6 months after THA (r = À0.538, p = 0.000). Compared with patients in the PLA group, the muscle strength of patients in the DAA group was significantly higher than that of patients in the DAA group at 4 days (p < 0.05) and 7 days (p < 0.05) after THA. The Harris hip scores of patients in the DAA group and PLA group were 81.0 AE 0.8 vs 70.8 AE 0.7 at 6 weeks, 93.4 AE 0.9 vs 86.4 AE 0.6 at 3 months, and 96.8 AE 1.1 vs 93.4 AE 0.8 at 6 months, respectively, both p < 0.05. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between patients in the DAA and PLA groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion:DAA was superior to the PLA in improving hip function after THA. Compared with the PLA, the DAA could reduce muscle damage, which is negatively correlated with hip function. Further multi-institution studies are required with longer follow-up durations, and larger patient populations are needed to provide more definitive conclusions.

A comprehensive meta-analysis was performed to investigate whether the combination of high-/low-dose of aspirin and various intensities of warfarin (W) offer greater benefit than aspirin (ASA) alone. A total of 14 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) having 26,916 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) met inclusion criteria. The efficacy and safety of all outcomes which included myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death, stroke, and bleeding were calculated. The overall outcomes analysis showed there was no significant difference in the risk of MI (relative ratio [RR] 0.959, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.04, P = 0.308), stroke (RR 0.789, 95 % CI 0.57-1.09, P = 0.145), and all-cause death (RR 1.007, 95 % CI 0.93-1.09, P = 0.87) between the combination group and ASA group. The subgroup analysis suggested that ASA (≤100 mg/day) plus W (mean international normalized ratio [INR] 2.0-3.0) decreased the risk rate of stroke (RR 0.660, 95 % CI 0.50-0.87, P = 0.003). There was a lower risk of MI (RR 0.605, 95 % CI 0.47-0.77, P < 0.0001) as well as stroke (RR 0.594, 95 % CI 0.45-0.79, P < 0.0001) between W (INR 2.0-3.0) combined with ASA (mean dose ≥100 mg/day) and ASA. However, the risk of major bleeding (RR 1.738, 95 % CI 1.45-2.08, P < 0.0001) and minor bleeding (RR 2.767, 95 % CI 2.12-3.61, P < 0.0001) was almost doubled in the combined groups. Compared with ASA, high-dose aspirin with moderate-intensity warfarin (INR 2.0-3.0) may better reduce the risk of MI and stroke but confer an increased risk of bleeding.

Purpose: The treatments for advanced or metastatic BRAF mutant melanoma are flourish, but the most effective treatment is unclear. Here, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) in unresectable stage III or advanced (or metastatic) stage IV BRAF mutant melanoma patients to estimate the efficacy of various first line treatments.Methods: A comprehensive search for RCTs in PubMed and EMBASE was conducted to January 2021. Randomized control trials of unresectable stage III or advanced stage IV BRAF mutant melanoma were eligible if not receive previously treatment. By a Bayesian network meta-analysis, the effectiveness of each treatment was estimated and ranked based on the odds ratio (OR) for Object response rate (ORR) and hazard ratio (HR) for Overall survival (OS).Results: Eight trials enrolling 3272 patients were included. Combination dabrafenib and trametinib with pembrolizumab (HR: 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-0.66; compared with dacarbazine) ranked as the best effective treatment for OS.Conclusion: Combination pembrolizumab with trametinib and dabrafenib and combination atezolizumab with trametinib and dabrafenib appear more effective as first line treatments for unresectable stage III or advanced (or metastatic) stage IV BRAF mutant melanoma patients. Whereas, further RCTs are needed to complete the network.