Search

Background: Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) are commonly used for preventing venous thrombosis of the lower extremity in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. Although, LMWH is the most commonly used drug, it has yet to be established whether it is more effective and safer than UFH. Further, a comparison of the effectiveness of LMWH in preventing thrombosis at different locations and different degrees of spinal cord injury has also not been clearly defined. Materials and methods: Cohort studies comparing the use of LMWH and UFH in the prevention of lower limb venous thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury were identified using PubMed. The risk of bias and clinical relevance of the included studies were assessed using forest plots. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The main results of the study were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3. Results: A total of five studies were included in this meta-analysis. Four studies compared the effectiveness and safety of LMWH and UFH in preventing thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury. No significant differences were found between the therapeutic effects of the two drugs, and the summary RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.42–4.16; P = 0.63). There was also no significant difference in the risk of bleeding between the two medications, and the aggregate RR was 0.78 (95% CI 0.55–1.12; P = 0.18). When comparing the efficacy of LMWH in preventing thrombosis in different segments and different degrees of spinal cord injury, no significant differences were found. Conclusions: The results of this analysis show that compared with UFH, LMWH has no obvious advantages in efficacy nor risk prevention, and there is no evident difference in the prevention of thrombosis for patients with injuries at different spinal cord segments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shock-wave therapy (SWT) has been widely applied and proven to be an effective treatment in ameliorating symptoms of plantar fasciitis (PF). Ultrasound therapy (UT) is another common treatment of PF, and several researches have documented its advantages when compared to corticosteroid injection. Despite this, few studies have focused on comparing the use of SWT and UT in the treatment of PF. The purpose of our meta-analysis is to evaluate whether SWT is better than UT in managing PF, both in terms of ameliorating pain and improving functionality.Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify relevant articles that were published in Pubmed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, SpringerLink, Clinical Trials.gov and OVID from the databases' inception to October 2018. All studies comparing the efficacy of SWT and UT in terms of pain levels and functionality improvement were included. Data on the two primary outcomes were collected and analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3.Results: Five studies were included in the current meta-analysis. A significant difference in VAS score (MD = - 13.14, Cl - 14.07 to - 12.75 P < 0.00001, I2 = 100%) was noted between the SWT group and the UT group. No significant difference was seen in the AOFAS (MD = 3.19, Cl - 1.72 to 8.10 P = 0.20, I2 = 100%); FFI or PFPS score was not found significant difference either (SMD = - 1.17, Cl - 4.45 to 2.10 P = 0.48, I2 = 96%).Conclusions: The results from this meta-analysis highlight the effectiveness of both SWT and UT in the treatment of PF. Although inter-group differences were not significant, the VAS score was better improved in the SWT group, suggesting that SWT may be a superior alternative for the treatment of PF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Corticosteroid (CS) injections have been proven to be effective in ameliorating symptoms of plantar fasciitis. Shock-wave (SW) therapy is another common treatment of plantar fasciitis, and several meta-analyses have documented its advantages when compared to placebo treatment. Despite this, few studies have focused on comparing the use of CS and SW in the treatment of plantar fasciitis. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to assess whether SW is superior to CS in managing plantar fasciitis, both in terms of ameliorating pain as well as improving functionality.Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify relevant articles that were published in Pubmed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, SpringerLink, Clinical Trials.gov and OVID from the databases' inception to July 2018. All studies comparing the efficacy of SW and CS in terms of pain levels and functionality improvement were included. Data on the two primary outcomes were collected and analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3.Results: Six studies were included in the current meta-analysis. A significant difference in VAS score (MD = - 0.96, Cl - 1.28 to - 0.63, P < 0.00001, I2 = 96%) was noted between the SW group and the CS group. No significant difference was seen in the Mayo CSS or FFI or HFI or 100 Scoring System score at the 3 months follow-up (Chi2 = 0.62, I2 = 0%, P > 0.05).Conclusions: The clinical relevance of the present study is that both SW and CS were effective and successful in relieving pain and improving self-reported function in the treatment of plantar fasciitis at 3 months. Although inter-group differences were not significant, the VAS score was better improved in the SW group, highlighting that shock-wave therapy may be a better alternative for the management of chronic plantar fasciitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Distal metadiaphyseal tibial fractures are commonly seen lower limb fractures. Intramedullary nail fixation (IMN) and plate internal fixation (PL) are the two mainstay treatments for tibial fractures, but agreement on the best internal fixation for distal tibial fractures is still controversial. This meta-analysis was designed to compare the success of IMN and PL fixations in the treatment of distal metadiaphyseal tibial fractures, in terms of complications and functional recovery. Methods: A systematic research of the literature was conducted to identify relevant articles that were published in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, SpringerLink, Clinical Trials.gov, and OVID from the database inception to August 2018. All studies comparing the complication rate and functional improvement of I2MN and PL were included. Data on the 12 main outcomes were collected and analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3. Results: Eleven studies were included in the current meta-analysis. A significant difference in malunion (RR = 1.76, 95%CI 1.21–2.57, P = 0.003), superficial infection (RR = 0.29, 95%CI 0.13–0.63, P = 0.002), FFI (MD = 0.09, 95%CI 0.01–0.17, P = 0.02), and knee pain (RR = 3.85, 95%CI 2.07–7.16, P < 0.0001) was noted between the IMN group and PL group. No significant difference was seen in the operation time (MD = − 10.46, 95%CI − 21.69–0.77, P = 0.07), radiation time (MD = 7.95, 95%CI − 6.65–22.55, P = 0.29), union time (MD = − 0.21, 95%Cl − 0.82–0.40, P = 0.49.), nonunion (RR = 2.17,95%CI 0.79–5.99, P = 0.15), deep infection (RR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.35–2.06, P = 0.72), delay union (RR = 0.92, 95%CI 0.45–1.87, P = 0.82), AOFAS (MD 1.26, 95%Cl − 1.19–3.70, P = 0.31), and Disability Rating Index in 6 or 12 months (MD = − 3.75, 95%CI − 9.32–1.81, P = 0.19, MD = − 17.11, 95%CI − 59.37–25.16, P = 0.43, respectively). Conclusions: Although no significant difference was seen between IMN and PL fixation with regards to the operation time, radiation time, nonunion, deep infection delay union, union time, AOFAS, and Disability Rating Index, significant differences were seen in occurrence of malunion, superficial infection, FFI, and knee pain. Based on this evidence, IMN appears to be a superior choice for functional improvement of the ankle and reduction of postoperative wound superficial infection. PL internal fixation seems to be more advantageous in achieving anatomical reduction and decreasing knee pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a common tendinopathy for which an effective treatment is still unknown. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness of platelet rich plasma (PRP) vs steroid in reducing pain and improving function of the elbow in the treatment of LE. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify related articles published from January 1980 to September 2016 in Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and SpringerLink. All studies that compared PRP with steroid administration on LE were included. Main outcomes were collected and analyzed by the Review Manager 5.1. Results: Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved 511 patients met the criteria. This meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in pain relief in the short-term (2 to 4 weeks: SMD = 1.02, P = .03; 6 to 8 weeks: SMD = .73, P = .24) and the intermediate-term (12 weeks: SMD = −0.28, P = .35). Steroid exhibited a better efficacy of function in the short-term (2 to 4 weeks: SMD = .61, P < .001; 6 to 8 weeks: SMD = .53, P < .001). However, PRP was superior to steroid for pain relief in the long-term (half year: SMD = −1.6, P < .001; one year: SMD = −1.45, P < .001), and also for function improving in the intermediate-term (12 weeks: SMD = −0.53, P < .001) and the long-term (half year: SMD = −0.56, P < .001; one year: SMD = −0.7, P < .001). No serious adverse effects of treatment were observed in the two groups. Conclusion: Treatment of patients with LE by steroid could slightly relieve pain and significantly improve function of elbow in the short-term (2 to 4 weeks, 6 to 8 weeks). PRP appears to be more effective in relieving pain and improving function in the intermediate-term (12 weeks) and long-term (half year and one year). Considering the long-term effectiveness of PRP, we recommend PRP as the preferred option for LE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma ( PPARγ) Pro12Ala gene polymorphism and type 2 diabetic nephropathy (T2DN) risk in Asians is still unclear. This study was performed to evaluate if there was an association between the PPARγ Pro12Ala gene polymorphism and T2DN risk in Asians using meta-analysis. The relevant reports were searched and identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library and CBM-disc (China Biological Medicine Database) on 1 October 2013, and eligible studies were included and synthesized. Ten reports were recruited into this meta-analysis for the association of the PPARγ Pro12Ala gene polymorphism with T2DN risk. The Pro12Ala gene polymorphism in the Asian population was shown to be not associated with T2DN risk (Ala/Ala: OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.22-2.00, p = 0.47; Pro/Pro: OR = 1.77, 95% CI: 0.82-1.65, p = 0.39; Ala allele: OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.47-1.16, p = 0.19). In the sensitivity analysis according to Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE), the control source from hospital, the control source from population, the genotyping methods using PCR-RFLP, the genotyping methods using Taqman, sample size of case (≥100), the association of the PPARγ Pro12Ala gene polymorphism with T2DN risk was also not found. Interestingly, in the sensitivity analysis according to sample size of case (<100), Ala allele was associated with T2DN risk, but not the Pro/Pro genotype. However, the sample size for sensitivity analysis according to sample size of case (<100) was relatively small and therefore, the results should be interpreted with care. In conclusion, the PPARγ Pro12Ala gene polymorphism was not associated with T2DN risk in Asians. However, Ala allele was associated with T2DN risk when the sample size of case was less than 100. Nonetheless, additional studies are required to firmly establish a correlation between the PPARγ Pro12Ala gene polymorphism and T2DN risk in Asians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis is a common source of pain among craftsmen. Although it cannot be completely resolved, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and ultrasonics (US) have been found to be effective for tennis elbow as highlighted in previously published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reviews. However, the efficacy of these two therapies in treating tennis elbow is unknown. This meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of ESWT and US in relieving pain and restoring the functions of tennis elbow following tendinopathy. Methods: RCTs published in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and SpringerLink databases comparing ESWT and US in treating tennis elbow were identified by a software and manual search. The risk of bias and clinical relevance of the included studies were assessed. Publication bias was explored using funnel plot and statistical tests (Egger's test and Begg's test). The major outcomes of the studies were analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3. Results: Five RCTs comprising five patients were included in the present meta-analysis. The results revealed a significantly lower VAS score of pain in the ESWT group (1 month: MD = 4.47, p = 0.0001; 3 months: MD = 20.32, p < 0.00001; and 6 months: MD = 4.32, p < 0.0001) compared to US. Besides, the grip strength was markedly higher 3 months after the intervention in ESWT (MD = 8.87, p < 0.00001) than in the US group. Although no significant difference was observed in the scores of the elbow function after 3 months of treatment (SMD = 1.51, p = 0.13), the subjective scores of elbow functions were found to be better in the ESWT group (SMD = 3.34; p = 0.0008) compared to the US group. Conclusions: Although there was no significant difference in the elbow function evaluation scores between ESWT and US, the superiority of the ESWT group in the VAS of pain (both at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months follow-ups) raised grip strength in ESWT group and the scores for subjective evaluation of efficacy indicated that ESWT offers more effective therapy for lateral epicondylitis than US therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]