Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate whether endoscopic discectomy (ED) shows superiority compared with the current gold standard of microdiscectomy (MD) in management of lumbar disc disease. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database search including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from 1990 till April 2020 for studies comparing ED and MD in the management of lumbar disc disease. Analysis was performed in R platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software. Results: We included 27 studies, including 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 7 nonrandomized prospective, and 9 retrospective studies involving 4018 patients in the meta-analysis. We stratified the results based on the study design. Considering the heterogeneity in some results between study designs, we weighed our conclusion essentially based on results of RCTs. On analyzing the RCTs, superiority was established at 95% confidence interval for ED compared with MD in terms of functional outcomes like Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score ( P = .008), duration of surgery ( P = .023), and length of hospital stay ( P < .001) although significant heterogeneity was noted. Similarly, noninferiority to MD was established by ED in other outcomes like visual analogue scale score for back pain ( P = .860) and leg pain ( P = .495), MacNab classification ( P = .097), recurrences ( P = .993), reoperations ( P = .740), and return-to-work period ( P = .748). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis established the superiority of endoscopic discectomy in outcome measures like ODI score, duration of surgery, overall complications, length of hospital stay and noninferiority in other measures analyzed. With recent advances in the field of ED, the procedure has the potential to take over the place of MD as the gold standard of care in management of lumbar disc disease.

No abstract

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate whether intradiscal Platelet Rich Plasma(PRP) injection has any beneficial role in the management of lumbar disc disease. Methods: We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library till September 2020 for studies investigating the role of intradiscal PRP in the management of lumbar disc disease. The analysis was performed in the R platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software. Results: 13 studies including 2 RCTs, 5 prospective, and 6 retrospective studies involving 319 patients were included in the meta-analysis. A single-arm meta-analysis of the included studies showed a beneficial effect of the intervention in terms of pain relief outcomes like VAS score (p < 0.001), pain component of SF-36 (p = 0.003) while such improvement was not seen in functional outcome measures like ODI score (p = 0.071), the physical component of SF-36 (p = 0.130) with significant heterogeneity noted among the included studies. No structural improvement in magnetic resonance imaging was observed (p = 0.106). No additional procedure-related adverse events were noted in the included studies (p = 0.662). Conclusion: There is a paucity of high-quality studies to give conclusive evidence on the benefits of intradiscal PRP for lumbar disc disease. Although intradiscal PRP injection has shown some beneficial effect in controlling pain for lumbar disc disease, we could not find structural or functional improvement from the included studies. Hence, we recommend large double-blind double-arm randomized controlled studies to analyze the benefits of the intervention being analyzed.

Background 3,181,642 cases and 224,301 deaths in 212 regions of the world-this is the status of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) pandemic as of May 1, 2020. This pandemic has managed to overwhelm the health care system of the most advanced countries in the world. As the whole of the medical fraternity stands robed as health care professionals to fight against COVID-19, specialty emergencies like trauma continue to pester the already overburdened health care community. This situation calls for the need for a pandemic response protocol (PREP) in each specialty that helps the doctors to manage specialty emergencies without chaos and at the same time allowing them to play their part in pandemic management. Conclusion PREP as an integrated pragmatic approach is essential in containing pandemics as they need international cooperation at various levels starting from knowledge sharing to monetary support. PREP which is in line with the WHO action plan, will be an essential minimum response of a non-frontline pandemic response specialty like orthopedics to combat and curtail the effects of a pandemic in a multispecialty tertiary health care centre.

No abstract

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective: To systematically review the available articles on topical vancomycin powder (TVP) use in pediatric spine surgeries exploring the usefulness and safety of such practice. Methods: We conducted an independent and duplicate electronic database search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library till March 2020 to identify all relevant literature on the use of TVP for pediatric spine surgeries. Surgical site infection (SSI) rate, specific reported complications, reoperation rate, microbial flora pattern in reported SSIs, and safety profile were the outcomes analyzed. Analysis was performed with the R platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software. Results: No prospective studies were available to evaluate the use of TVP in pediatric spine surgeries for the prevention of SSIs. Neither standardized protocol, nor drug dosage, nor safety profile was established for pediatric use. Three retrospective cohort studies including 824 patients (TVP/control: 400/424) were included in the meta-analysis. There was low-quality evidence suggesting no significant difference between the 2 groups in SSI rate (RR = 0.474; 95% CI = [0.106,2.112]; P = .327) with significant heterogeneity ( I 2 = 70.14; P = .035). The TVP group showed a significant benefit on cost analysis in one of the included studies. However, TVP did not prevent gram-negative coinfection on SSI in the TVP group. Conclusion: From the literature available at present, TVP does not qualify to be recommended as a safe and useful option to prevent SSI following pediatric spine surgeries. High-quality prospective interventional studies are needed to arrive at a consensus on its use along with appropriate dosage and method of application.

No abstract

No abstract