The term long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) refers to a group of RNAs with length more than 200 nucleotides, limited protein-coding potential, and having widespread biological functions, including regulation of transcriptional patterns and protein activity, formation of endogenous small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and natural microRNA (miRNA) sponges. Intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) and osteoarthritis (OA) are the most common chronic, prevalent and age-related degenerative musculoskeletal disorders. Numbers of lncRNAs are differentially expressed in human degenerative nucleus pulposus tissue and OA cartilage. Moreover, some lncRNAs have been shown to be involved in multiple pathological processes during OA, including extracellular matrix (ECM) degradation, inflammatory responses, apoptosis and angiogenesis. In this review, we summarize current knowledge concerning lncRNAs, from their biogenesis, classification and biological functions to molecular mechanisms and therapeutic potential in IDD and OA. are the most common chronic, prevalent and age-related degenerative musculoskeletal disorders, leading to an enormous socioeconomic burden worldwide. IDD and OA are two major causes of disability and chronic pain, and their incidence has been increasing not only among older persons but also within younger adults in the past decades. It is estimated that approximately 80% adults will suffer chronic low back pain caused by IDD during their lifetime.1 Over 50% of patients with symptomatic OA are younger than 65 years old.

In contrast with RT-qPCR, dd-PCR is more sensitive, thus enabling accurate conversion of dd-PCR results into internationally standard RT-qPCR results by conversion equation, to achieve a deeper molecular biology-based stratification of BCR/ABL(P210) MRD. It has some reference value to monitor disease progression in clinic.

With minimally invasive technique becoming more popular, endoscopic operations such as arthroscopy or laparoscopy have become the standard of care in several other areas. In this study, we evaluated the 5-year followup outcomes of anterior cervical (Ahn et al. in Photomed Laser Surg 23:362-368, 2005) discectomy and interbody fusion (ACDF) performed via endoscopic approach. Sixtyseven patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and cage fusion performed using endoscopic technique were followed for at least 5 years. We reviewed the clinical and radiographic records of these patients. The postoperative radiographic measures accessed were the anterior intervertebral height (AIH) and the lordosis angle (LDA). Clinical outcomes were determined using the previously validated Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) and the pain visual analog scale (VAS). Patients included had a minimal follow-up period of 5 years and based on the outcomes criteria (JOA, VAS), 86.6% of patients reported excellent or good results. The AIH increased on average 18.7% of the original height (p \ 0.01), and the LDA were more physiologic at final follow-up. Of the 67 cases, there was no segmental instability, and the bone fusion rate was 100%. One patient required revision open ACDF due to adjacent segment disc herniation 6 years postoperatively. There were no intraoperative complications, dysphasia or esophageal injury in this study group. It indicated endoscopic technique for ACDF can obtain satisfactory results in patients with cervical disc herniation, cervical myelopathy, or radiculopathy. Compared with a traditional approach, this technique may be associated with less morbidity while improving cosmesis and postoperative recovery. Prospective randomized control trials are needed to directly compare these two procedures.

ObjectiveSurgery remains the primary form of treatment for infective endocarditis (IE). However, it is not clear what type of prosthetic valve provides a better prognosis. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the prognosis of infective endocarditis treated with biological valves to cases treated with mechanical valves.MethodsPubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from January 1960 to November 2016.Randomized controlled trials, retrospective cohorts and prospective studies comparing outcomes between biological valve and mechanical valve management for infective endocarditis were analyzed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale(NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the literature and extracted data, and Stata 12.0 software was used for the meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 11 publications were included; 10,754 cases were selected, involving 6776 cases of biological valves and 3,978 cases of mechanical valves. The all-cause mortality risk of the biological valve group was higher than that of the mechanical valve group (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.44, P = 0.023), as was early mortality (RR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, P = 0.033). The recurrence of endocarditis (HR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.42, P = 0.001), as well as the risk of reoperation (HR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.80, P = 0.010) were more likely to occur in the biological valve group. The incidence of postoperative embolism was less in the biological valve group than in the mechanical valve group, but this difference was not statistically significant (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07, P = 0.245). For patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), there was no significant difference in survival rates between the biological valve group and the mechanical valve group (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21, P = 0.520).ConclusionThe results of our meta-analysis suggest that mechanical valves can provide a significantly better prognosis in patients with infective endocarditis. There were significant differences in the clinical features of patients receiving a biological valve compared to patients receiving a mechanical valve. A large, multicenter retrospective study included in our meta-analysis suggested that any mortality risk of the biological valve group was significant higher than that of the mechanical valve group. However, the risk was no different after risk was adjusted. So, we thought the reason for this result may be related to the characteristics of the patient rather than valve dysfunction. It is still necessary to future randomized studies to verify this conclusion.

The "pedicle exposure technique" is an effective alternative in patients with the C1 posterior arch measuring <4 mm. In consideration of a high screw entry point on the C1 posterior arch, similar to the C1 posterior arch screw technique, we propose that this new technique can reduce venous plexus and C2 nerve root injury while providing effective biomechanical stability.