Background: Conservative treatment remains the preferred choice for distal radius fracture in children. However, loss of reduction is problematic, especially in an older child. Crossed Kirschner-wires is widely used to treat distal radius fracture in adolescents. This study aimed to compare the application of crossed Kirschner-wiring (KW) and non-bridging external fixator (EF) for the treatment of delayed distal radial fracture involving metaphyseal diaphyseal junction (MDJ) in adolescents. Methods: Between January 2012 to January 2017, 146 (male = 101, female = 45) patients in EF group and 117 (male = 76, female = 41) in KW group, were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperative data were collected from the hospital database, and postoperative clinical outcomes data were collected during the follow-up visits. We used SPSS for data analysis. Results: There existed no significant difference between EF and KW regarding sex, body weight, fracture side, duration from injury to surgery. The duration of surgery was significantly shorter in EF (30.5 ± 6.1 min) than the KW group (44.6 ± 9.4 min), P < 0.001. The number of intraoperative X-ray images was significantly lower in EF (6.5 ± 1.1) than KW (11.8 ± 2.3), P < 0.001. The incidence of tendon irritation is significantly higher in the KW (19.7%) than the EF group (0%), P < 0.001. The residual angulation on the AP view was higher in KW (3.8 ± 2.3, degrees) than the EF group (2.5 ± 1.6, degrees), P < 0.001. The volar tilting is better in EF (6.6 ± 1.1, degrees) than the KW group (1.0 ± 1.5, degrees), P < 0.001. However, the functional outcomes of the wrist showed no significant difference between EF and KW group, P = 0.086. Conclusion: The EF was superior to KW in the treatment of radial MDJ fractures in adolescents. The EF displayed shorter duration of surgery, less tendon irritation, and better radiographic outcomes than the KW. However, the cost-effect analysis remains to be investigated, because the EF is more expensive than KW.

No abstract

Background The optimal dosage and administration approach of tranexamic acid (TXA) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. In light of recently published 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the study aims to incorporate the newly found evidence and compare the efficacy and safety of intra-articular (IA) vs. intravenous (IV) application of TXA in primary TKA. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs comparing IA with IV TXA for primary TKA. Primary outcomes included total blood loss (TBL) and drain output. Secondary outcomes included hidden blood loss (HBL), hemoglobin (Hb) fall, blood transfusion rate, perioperative complications, length of hospital stay, and tourniquet time. Result In all, 34 RCTs involving 3867 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Significant advantages of IA were shown on TBL (MD = 33.38, 95% CI = 19.24 to 47.51, P < 0.001), drain output (MD = 28.44, 95% CI = 2.61 to 54.27, P = 0.03), and postoperative day (POD) 3+ Hb fall (MD = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.39, P = 0.001) compared with IV. There existed no significant difference on HBL, POD1 and POD2 Hb fall, blood transfusion rate, perioperative complications, length of hospital stay, and tourniquet time between IA and IV. Conclusion Intra-articular administration of TXA is superior to intravenous in primary TKA patients regarding the performance on TBL, drain output, and POD3+ Hb fall, without increased risk of perioperative complications. Therefore, intra-articular administration is the recommended approach in clinical practice for primary TKA.