Search

Background: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the blood loss and complications of intra-articular (IA) with intravenous (IV) tranexamic acid (TXA) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA).Methods: A comprehensive search of studies was conducted to identify related articles in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central Register of Controlled Trials, springerLink, OVID and the Research published from January 1980 to September 2016. All studies that compared IA TXA with IV TXA application on TKA were included. Main outcomes of the two methods were collected and analyzed by using Review Manager 5.3.Results: There were 16 randomized controlled trials with 1308 cases met the criteria. Compared with IV TXA, IA TXA had similar blood volume of drainage, hidden blood loss, transfusion rate and complications (P > 0.05). IA TXA had lower total blood loss than IV TXA, and there was significant difference (P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis of total blood loss based on times of IV TXA administration showed that repeat dose of IV TXA had a higher total blood loss and postoperative hemoglobin drop (P < 0.05) than IA TXA. However, single dose of IV TXA had a similar efficacy on total blood loss and postoperative hemoglobin drop (P > 0.05) when compared with IA TXA.Conclusions: Both IA TXA and single dose of IV TXA are effective in reducing total blood loss and postoperative hemoglobin drop without increasing complications of DVT or PE. The current meta-analysis suggests that 1.5 g TXA by IA administration or 1 g TXA by IV administration 10 min before tourniquet deflation is effective and safe in patients undergoing TKA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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]