ObjectiveCementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with reliable clinical results and high patient satisfaction. Short-stem prostheses (SS) were designed to achieve superior preservation of proximal bone stock and stability compared with those of conventional-stem prostheses (CS). This meta-analysis was conducted to determine the proximal bone remodelling, revision rate, Harris Hip Score, radiolucent line and maximum total point motion values of both SS and CS for primary THA.MethodRelevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving SS and CS in primary THA were identified from electronic databases, such as EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library.ResultUltimately, 12 RCTs involving 1130 patients (1387 hips) were included. The results showed that compared with CS, SS resulted in less bone mineral density (BMD) changes in Gruen zone 7 at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively (mean difference (MD)=5.11; 95% CI, 1.61, 8.61; P=0.30; and MD=4.90; 95% CI, 1.01, 8.79; P=0.17, respectively). No difference in BMD changes was found for Gruen zone 1 (MD=2.66; 95% CI, −3.31, 8.64; P<0.00001), and no differences were observed for the revision rate (relative risk (RR)=1.52; 95% CI, 0.71, 3.26; P=0.94), Harris Hip Score (MD=−0.38; 95% CI, −1.02, 0.26; P=0.89) or stem migration (MD=0.02; 95% CI, −0.07, 0.11; P=0.04).ConclusionOur results suggest that compared with CS, SS may provide superior bone remodelling and similar survival rates and clinical outcomes. However, the short-term follow-up of the included studies was inadequate to determine the long-term performance of SS.

Epidemiological studies have presented inconsistent evidence of the correlation between a fish-oriented dietary intake (FDI) and the risk of cognitive decline. To address these controversies, we performed this systematic review of prospective studies published in December 2016 and earlier using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Two independent researchers conducted the eligibility assessment and data extraction; all discrepancies were solved by discussion with a third researcher. The pooled relative risks (RRs) focused on the incidence of events were estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Overall, nine studies containing 28,754 subjects were analyzed. When the highest and lowest categories of fish consumption were compared, the summary RR for dementia of Alzheimer type (DAT) was 0.80 (95%CI = 0.65–0.97); i.e., people with a higher intake of fish had a 20% (95%CI = 3–35%) decreased risk of DAT. Additionally, the dose-response synthesized data indicated that a 100-g/week increase in fish intake reduced the risk of DAT by an additional 12% (RR = 0.88, 95%CI = 0.79–0.99). Non-significant results were observed for the risk of dementia of all causes (DAC) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Limited evidence involving heterogeneity was found within subgroups or across studies. In conclusion, this review confirmed that a higher intake of fish could be correlated with a reduced risk of DAT. Further research, especially prospective studies that specifically quantify FDI, will help find a more accurate assessment of the different levels of dietary intake.

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of celecoxib and diclofenac sodium in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods Clinical controlled trials (CCTs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from online databases comparing the efficacy of celecoxib and diclofenac sodium in the treatment of KOA were retrieved. The main outcomes included the treatment effect, C-reactive protein (CRP) level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), visual analog scale (VAS) score, and complication rate. The Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool in Review Manager 5.3.5 was used to assess methodological quality. Results Twelve studies (N = 2,350) were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated that celecoxib reduced pain more effectively than diclofenac sodium in patients with KOA, as evaluated by the VAS score. In addition, celecoxib has certain advantages in terms of better treatment effects and greater reductions in the ESR, CRP level, and complication rate. Conclusions Celecoxib is superior to diclofenac sodium in the treatment of KOA. However, well-designed and high-quality RCTs are still needed.

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of kidney-tonifying and blood-activating medicinal herbs (KTBAMs) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from online databases that compared the efficacy of KTBAMs and NSAIDs in the treatment of KOA were retrieved. The main outcomes included the evaluation of functional outcomes, pain, and adverse effects. The Cochrane risk-of-bias (ROB) tool was used to assess methodological quality. Results A total of 38 RCTs (3994 participants) were included in our meta-analysis. We found that KTBAMs had a significantly higher total effective rate (P < 0.00001, risk ratio (RR) = 1.08, confidence interval (CI) = 1.05 to 1.11, I2 = 4%) and a lower gastrointestinal adverse reaction rate (P < 0.00001, RR = 0.36, CI = 0.24 to 0.53, I2 = 33%) than NSAIDs. KTBAMs showed greater improvements in the Knee Society Scale (KSS) scores (mean difference (MD) = 7.17, 95% CI 0.71 to 13.64, P=0.03). Regarding the visual analog scale (VAS) scores, WOMAC scores, and Lequence scores, there were no significant differences between the KTBAM group and the NSAID group. The GRADE quality level of this systematic review indicated that the very low-quality evidence showed that KTBAMs had a higher total effective rate, while the moderate-quality evidence showed that the adverse reactions of KTBAMs were lower and the KSS scores were higher. Low-quality evidence showed no significant differences in improving VAS scores, WOMAC scores, or Lequence scores. Conclusion KTBAMs were superior to NSAIDs in terms of a higher total effective rate, a lower adverse reaction rate, and a higher KSS score. There were no significant differences between KTBAMs and NSAIDs in improving VAS scores, WOMAC scores, and Lequence scores of patients with KOA. Therefore, KTBAMs may be an alternative effective method for treating KOA. However, high-quality, well-designed RCTs with long-term follow-up are still required.

Background:To compare the efficacy and safety of the combined application of both drain-clamping and tranexamic acid (TXA) versus the single use of either application in patients with total-knee arthroplasty (TKA).Methods:Databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Sciences, the Google database, and the Ovid database) were searched from their inception through April 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the combined application of both drain-clamping and TXA versus single use of either application in patients with TKA. The Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool was used to assess the methodologic quality. The primary outcomes were blood loss in drainage, total blood loss, transfusion rate, and hemoglobin decline. The secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, the Knee Society Score (KSS), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. The statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3.5 software.Results:A total of five RCTs (479 participants) were included in our meta-analysis. The present meta-analysis indicated that significant differences existed in the total blood loss (mean difference [MD] = −145.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −228.64 to −63.08, P = .0006), blood loss in drainage (MD = −169.06, 95% CI: −248.56 to −89.57, P < .0001), hemoglobin decline (MD = −0.66, 95% CI: −1.00 to −0.33, P = .0001), and transfusion rate (MD = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.26–0.75, P = .002) between the groups. However, regarding postoperative complications, no significant differences were found between the 2 groups in the KSS and the WOMAC score (P > .05).Conclusion:Combined application of both drain-clamping and TXA was associated with significant reductions in blood loss in drainage, total blood loss, hemoglobin decline, and the need for transfusion. However, high-quality, well-designed RCTs with long-term follow-up are still required.