Background: Recently, there was a series of clinical studies focusing on local injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for treatment of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). However, the safety and efficacy of PRP in these CTS patients remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to compare PRP with other conservative treatments in treatment of CTS patients.Methods: We systematically searched from electronic databases (Cochrane, PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE) up to 10 December 2021. The data of clinical results were extracted and analyzed by RevMan Manager 5.4.Results: Finally, eight randomized controlled studies, involving 220 CTS patients undergoing local injection of PRP were enrolled in this systematic review. All enrolled trials were considered to be of high quality. In the short-term efficacy, the PRP group was significantly lower in symptom severity scale (SSS) compared with the control group (MD = −2.00; 95% CI, −3.15 to −0.85; p = 0.0007; I2 = 0%). In the mid-term efficacy, the PRP group was significantly effective than the control group in the visual analogue scale (MD = −0.63; 95% CI, −1.22 to −0.04; p = 0.04; I2 = 61%), SSS (MD = −3.56; 95% CI, −4.93 to −2.18; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%), functional status scale (MD = −2.29; 95% CI, −3.03 to −1.56; p < 0.00001; I2 = 45%), sensory peak latency (MD = −0.39; 95% CI, −0.58 to −0.19; p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%) and cross-sectional area of median nerve (MD = -0.20; 95% CI, −0.31 to −0.10; p = 0.0002; I2 = 0%). In the mid-long-term efficacy, the PRP group was only significantly lower in SSS compared with the control group (MD = −2.71; 95% CI, −4.33 to −1.10; p = 0.001; I2 = 38%).Conclusion: Local PRP injection is more effective than other conservative treatments in terms of mid-term efficacy in relieving pain, improving wrist function and symptoms, reducing MN swelling, and partially improving electrophysiological indicators. However, the long-term adverse side and consensus on standardization of PRP in CTS patients still need further large-scale trials.
Background: Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been widely applied to reduce perioperative bleeding. Recently, several studies focused on the administration of TXA in the treatment for with intertrochanteric fracture patients treated with intramedullary fixation. However, the efficacy and safety of TXA in these studies remain controversial. Therefore, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of TXA in intertrochanteric fracture patients treated with intramedullary fixation.Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases, including Cochrane, PubMed, and EMBASE, up to 16 May 2022. The efficacy and safety of TXA was evaluated in four aspects, which were bleeding-related outcomes, non-bleeding-related outcomes, thromboembolic events, and other complications. The outcomes of these studies were extracted and analyzed by RevMan Manager 5.4.Results: Finally, nine randomized controlled trials, involving nine hundred and seventy-two intertrochanteric fracture patients treated with TXA, were enrolled in this study. In the bleeding-related outcomes, TXA group was significantly lower than the control group in terms of total blood loss (MD = −219.42; 95% CI, −299.80 to −139.03; p < 0.001), intraoperative blood loss (MD = −36.81; 95% CI, −54.21 to −19.41; p < 0.001), hidden blood loss (MD = −189.23; 95% CI, −274.92 to −103.54; p < 0.001), and transfusion rate (RR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.85; p = 0.002). Moreover, the postoperative hemoglobin on day 3 of the TXA group was significantly higher than that of the control group (MD = 5.75; 95% CI, 1.26 to 10.23; p = 0.01). In the non-bleeding-related outcomes, the length of hospital stays was significantly shorter in the TXA group (MD = −0.67; 95% CI, −1.12 to −0.23; p = 0.003). In terms of thromboembolic events, there was no significant differences between the TXA group and control group in deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. As for complications and mortality, there was no significant differences between the TXA group and control group in respiratory infection, renal failure, and postoperative mortality within 1 year.Conclusion: TXA is an effective and safe drug for perioperative bleeding control in intertrochanteric fracture patients treated with intramedullary fixation. However, the long-term efficacy of TXA still needs to be investigated by large-scale multicenter randomized controlled trials.Level of evidence: II, Systematic review and Meta-analysis.Systematic Review Registration:https://inplasy.com/, identifier [INPLASY202280027]
Background To systematically review the literature and provide a comprehensive understanding of the preemptive effects of oral pregabalin on perioperative pain management in lower limb orthopedic surgery. Method We searched three electronic databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the results of preoperative pregabalin and placebo in patients undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgery. Data analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4. Results Twenty-one randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. The cumulative opioid consumption within 24 and 48 h postoperatively in the pregabalin group was significantly less than that in the placebo group. The pooled static pain intensity at all time points within the first day was significantly lower in the pregabalin group than in the placebo group. Lower dynamic pain intensity at 48 h was detected in the pregabalin group than in the placebo group. Meanwhile, pregabalin led to a lower incidence of nausea but appeared to be associated with a higher incidence of dizziness and sedation. Subgroup analyses showed that no difference was detected between subgroups stratified by dosing regimen or pregabalin dose in the results of opioid consumption, pain intensity and incidence of complications. Conclusion This meta-analysis supports the use of pregabalin preoperatively in patients undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgery. However, it was wary of the resulting increase in dizziness and sedation. There is no evidence to support the continued use of pregabalin postoperatively or using more than 150 mg of pregabalin per day. Trial registration: This study was registered on 09 November 2021 with INPLASY (registration number: INPLASY2021110031).
Background Recently, some studies on the efficacy of the femoral neck system (FNS) in treating femoral neck fractures (FNFs) have been published. Therefore, a systematic review was performed to clarify the efficacy and safety of FNS versus cannulated screws (CS) for the treatment of FNFs. Method The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies comparing FNS and CS fixations in FNFs. Intraoperative indicators, postoperative clinical indicators, postoperative complications, and postoperative scores were compared between the implants. Results A total of eight studies were included in the study, involving 448 FNFs patients. The results showed that patients in FNS group were significantly lower than the CS group in the number of X-ray exposures (WMD = -10.16; 95% CI, -11.44 to -8.88; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%), fracture healing time (WMD = -1.54; 95% CI, -2.38 to -0.70; P < 0.001; I2 = 92%), length of femoral neck shortening (WMD = -2.01; 95% CI, -3.11 to -0.91; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%), femoral head necrosis (OR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.83; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%), implant failure/cutout (OR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.82; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%), and Visual Analog Scale Score (WMD = -1.27; 95% CI, -2.51 to -0.04; P = 0.04; I2 = 91%). And the Harris Score was significantly higher in the FNS group than in the CS group (WMD = 4.15; 95% CI, 1.00 to 7.30; P = 0.01; I2 = 89%). Conclusions Based on this meta-analysis, FNS shows better clinical efficacy and safety in treating FNFs compared to CS. However, due to the limited quality and number of included studies and the high heterogeneity of the meta-analysis; large samples and multicenter RCTs are needed to confirm this conclusion in the future. Level of evidence II, Systematic review and Meta-analysis. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42021283646.
Background: Recently, some studies on the efficacy of the femoral neck system (FNS) in treating femoral neck fractures (FNFs) have been published. Therefore, a systematic review was performed to clarify the efficacy and safety of FNS versus cannulated screws (CS) for the treatment of FNFs. Method: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies comparing FNS and CS fixations in FNFs. Intraoperative indicators, postoperative clinical indicators, postoperative complications, and postoperative scores were compared between the implants. Results: A total of eight studies were included in the study, involving 448 FNFs patients. The results showed that patients in FNS group were significantly lower than the CS group in the number of X-ray exposures (WMD=-10.16; 95% CI, -11.44 to -8.88; P<0.001; I2=0%), fracture healing time (WMD=-1.54; 95% CI, -2.38 to -0.70; P <0.001; I2=92%), length of femoral neck shortening (WMD=-2.01; 95% CI, -3.11 to -0.91; P <0.001; I2=0%), femoral head necrosis (OR=0.27; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.83; P =0.02; I2=0% ), implant failure/cutout (OR=0.28; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.82; P =0.02; I2=0%), and Visual Analog Scale Score (WMD=-1.27; 95% CI, -2.51 to -0.04; P=0.04; I2=91%). And the Harris Score was significantly higher in the FNS group than in the CS group (WMD=4.15; 95% CI, 1.00 to 7.30; P=0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Based on this meta-analysis, FNS shows better clinical efficacy and safety in treating FNFs compared to CS. However, due to the limited quality and number of included studies and the high heterogeneity of the meta-analysis; large samples and multicenter RCTs are needed to confirm this conclusion in the future. Level of evidence: II, Systematic review and Meta-analysis. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021283646.
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.