Search

This study intends to assess the analgesic effects, physical facilitation, and safety of willow bark use in patients with arthritis. Our study was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for relative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) describing the efficacy or adverse events of willow bark in patients with arthritis until 12 April 2023. We used Cochrane ROB 2.0 and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations system to evaluate the quality of studies and evidence. The meta-analysis was carried out by the fix-effects model. This study included five studies with six RCTs consisting of 329 patients with arthritis. The results showed significant differences in pain relief and improvement in physical status for patients with arthritis between willow bark treatment and placebo groups, and no significant differences in the risk of all adverse events in patients with arthritis between willow bark treatment and placebo. Owing to the potential bias, the certainty and evidence of our findings are still inadequate. Therefore, further RCTs are needed to confirm our results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether modern congruent tibial inserts are associated with superior outcomes in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Background: Ultracongruent fixed-bearing (UCFB) and medial congruent fixed-bearing (MCFB) inserts have been known to be effective in total knee arthroplasty with patient satisfaction. Nonetheless, no supporting evidence to date exists to rank the clinical outcomes of these various congruent inserts in TKA compared with other important considerations in TKA including cruciate-retaining fixed-bearing (CRFB) and posterior-stabilized fixed-bearing (PSFB) inserts. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus up to 15 May 2022. We selected studies involving an active comparison of UCFB or MCFB in TKAs. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and compared different congruent inserts. We ranked the clinical outcomes by SUCRA score with the estimate of the best treatment probability. Our primary outcomes were revision rates and radiolucent lines. Secondary outcomes were functional scores, including the range of motion (ROM), the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and WOMAC. Results: Eighteen RCTs with 1793 participants were analyzed. Our NMA ranked MCFB, CRFB, and UCFB with the lowest revision rates. CRFB and UCFB had the fewest radiolucent lines. UCFB had overall the best ROM. UCFB and MCFB had the best OKS score overall. Conclusions: The ranking probability for better clinical outcomes in congruent inserts demonstrated the superiority of congruent tibial inserts, including UCFB and MCFB. UCFB may be associated with better ROM and postoperative functional outcomes. However, integrating future RCTs for high-level evidence is necessary to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Femoral head fractures are rare injuries with or without traumatic dislocations. The management of these fractures is crucial to prevent the development of severe complications and to achieve optimal functional outcomes. Wide treatment options for Pipkin 1 femoral head fractures range from fragment excision, fixation following open reduction with internal fixation, or conservative treatment such as close reduction alone after fracture dislocation. However, the best decision making remains controversial not only due to lack of large trials, but also inconsistent results reported. Therefore, we aim to compare the operative with nonoperative outcomes of Pipkin type 1 patients. Patients and Methods: We systemically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations to identify studies assessing outcomes of Pipkin type 1 patients after conservative treatment, and open reduction with excision or fixation. Data on comparison of clinical outcomes of each management were extracted including arthritis, heterotopic ossification (HO), avascular necrosis (AVN), and functional scores (Thompson Epstein, Merle' d Augine and Postel Score). We performed a meta-analysis with the available data. Results: Eight studies (7 case series and 1 RCT) were included in this study. In a pooled analysis, the overall rate of arthritis was 37% (95% CI, 2–79%), HO was 20% (95% CI, 2–45%), and AVN was 3% (95% CI, 0–16%). In comparison of management types, the excision group reached the best functional outcomes including Thompson Epstein Score (poor to worse, 9%; 95% CI, 0–27%) and Merle d' Aubigne and Postel Score (poor to worse, 18%; 95% CI, 3–38%); ORIF group had the highest AVN rate (11%; 95% CI, 0–92%); conservative treatment had the highest arthritis rate (67%; 95% CI: 0–100%) and lowest HO rate (2%; 95% CI, 0–28%). Discussion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that different procedures lead to various clinical outcomes: fragment excision may achieve better function, conservative treatment may result in a higher arthritis rate, while ORIFs may have a higher AVN rate. These findings may assist surgeons in tailoring their decision-making to specific patient profiles. Future RCTs with multicenter efforts are needed to validate associations found in this study. Level of Evidence: II, systematic review and meta-analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]