Search

Background: Mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (MATKA) is a well-established procedure. Kinematically aligned TKA (KATKA) has been proposed to restore and preserve pre-arthritic knee anatomy. However, normal knee anatomy varies widely, and there have been concerns regarding restoring unusual anatomy. Accordingly, restricted KATKA (rKATKA) was introduced to reproduce constitutional knee anatomy within a safe range. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of the surgeries. Methods: We performed a database search on August 20, 2022, which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two of the three surgical TKA techniques for knee osteoarthritis. We conducted a random-effects NMA within the frequentist framework and evaluated confidence in each outcome using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool. Results: Ten RCTs with 1,008 knees and a median follow-up period of 1.5 years were included. The three methods might result in little to no difference in range of motion (ROM) between methods. In patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the KATKA might result in a slight improvement compared with the MATKA (standardized mean difference, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16–0.78; very low confidence). There was little to no difference in revision risk between MATKA and KATKA. KATKA and rKATKA showed a slight valgus femoral component (mean difference [MD], -1.35; 95% CI, -1.95–[-0.75]; very low confidence; and MD, -1.72; 95% CI, -2.63–[-0.81]; very low confidence, respectively) and a slight varus tibial component (MD, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.22–3.24; very low confidence; and MD, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.01–2.49; very low confidence, respectively) compared with MATKA. Tibial component inclination and hip–knee–ankle angle might result in little to no difference between the three procedures. Conclusions: KATKA and rKATKA showed similar ROM and PROMs and a slight variation in the coronal component alignment compared with MATKA. KATKA and rKATKA are acceptable methods in short- to mid-term follow-up periods. However, long-term clinical results in patients with severe varus deformity are still lacking. Surgeons should choose surgical procedures carefully. Further trials are warranted to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and subsequent revision risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is often challenging to present the available evidence in a timely and comprehensible manner. We aimed to visualize the evolution of evidence about antidepressants for depression by conducting cumulative network meta‐analyses (NMAs) and to examine whether it could have helped the selection of optimal drugs. We built a Shiny web application that performs and presents cumulative NMAs based on R netmeta. We used a comprehensive dataset of double‐blind randomized controlled trials of 21 antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depression. The primary outcomes were efficacy (treatment response) and acceptability (all‐cause discontinuation), and treatment effects were summarized via odds ratios. We evaluated the confidence in evidence using the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta‐Analysis) framework for a series of consecutive NMAs. Users can change several conditions for the analysis, such as the period of synthesis, among the others. We present the league tables and two‐dimensional plots that combine efficacy, acceptability and level of confidence in the evidence together, for NMAs conducted in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2016. They reveal that through the past four decades, newly approved drugs often showed initially exaggerated results, which tended to diminish and stabilize after approximately a decade. Over the years, the drugs with relative superiority changed dramatically; but as the evidence network grew larger and better connected, the overall confidence improved. The Shiny app visualizes how evidence evolved over years, emphasizing the need for a careful interpretation of relative effects between drugs, especially for the potentially amplified performance of newly approved drugs. Highlights: Network meta‐analysis is considered to be a proper way of demonstrating the available evidence, since it allows comparisons between multiple interventions, and has been proved to be statistically powerful.It is challenging to present the voluminous results of NMA in an efficient and comprehendible manner.Evidence evolution based on the relatively new method NMA has not been investigated yet.The results of NMA should not only include the effects but also the confidence in the evidence, which can help interpret the findings appropriately.Effective use of rapidly developing statistical analysis and presentation tools such as Shiny package in R, may facilitate and simplify the visualization of NMA output.We should stay conservative towards new drugs, as their performance was often shown to be exaggerated initially, and it took time to become stable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is a well-established procedure, but serious complications may occur. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the utility of videolaryngoscopy-assisted technique in TEE probe insertion. We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ICTRP. We included RCTs comparing TEE probe insertion techniques assisted with videolaryngoscopy and with any other insertion technique in adult patients. Primary outcome measures were (1) the number of attempts before successful TEE probe insertion, and (2) the risk of any procedural injury to related structures. The secondary outcome measure was time to TEE probe insertion. In total, three studies (n = 266) were included in this systematic review. Overall, a significantly less number of attempts were required with videolaryngoscopy-assisted insertion (mean difference [MD] − 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] − 0.73, − 0.46; low quality of evidence). Videolaryngoscopy-assisted technique was also associated with smaller risk of complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.17; 95% CI 0.05, 0.62; low quality of evidence). There was no significant difference in time to probe insertion (MD − 8.57; 95% CI − 26.31, 9.16; very low quality of evidence). The use of videolaryngoscopy for TEE probe insertion is associated with a significant reduction in the number of attempts and complication rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Duloxetine has some effect against cancer neuropathic pain (CNP); however, predictors of duloxetine response are unclear. This study sought to identify predictors of duloxetine response in patients with CNP.Methods: Patients (N = 70) with CNP unresponsive to or intolerant of opioid-pregabalin combination therapy, with a brief pain inventory-short form (BPI-SF) Item 5 score (average pain) ≥ 4, and with a total hospital anxiety and depression scale score < 20, were randomized to a duloxetine or a placebo group. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to identify predictors of duloxetine response as a secondary analysis with the change in the average pain score on day 10 from day 0 as the dependent variable, and the following five covariates; baseline (day 0) average pain score, baseline opioid dose, continuation/discontinuation of pregabalin, and items 20 and 21 score of the short-form McGill pain questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ-2) as independent variables.Results: Of the four domains (continuous pain, intermittent pain, neuropathic pain, and affective descriptors) score of SF-MPQ-2 on day 0, significant differences were observed in the neuropathic pain domain (p = 0.040) in change on the average pain between day 10 and day 0 in the duloxetine group. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that patients with a high score for SF-MPQ-2 Item 21 (tingling pain) on day 0 had a significantly greater change in average pain between day 10 and day 0 (p = 0.046).Conclusion: Patients with a high score for SF-MPQ-2 Item 21 might benefit more from duloxetine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether rehabilitation impacts clinically relevant outcomes among adult patients with sepsis. Randomized controlled trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PEDro, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform Search Portal, as well as conference proceedings and reference lists of relevant articles were collected. Two reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials on the rehabilitation of patients with sepsis, and the two reviewers independently abstracted trial level data including population characteristics, interventions, comparisons, and clinical outcomes. Our primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), activity of daily living (ADL), and mortality. Our secondary outcomes were length of stay, return to work, muscle strength, delirium, and all adverse events. The quality of evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included two trials enrolling 75 patients. The mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of physical function and physical role in QOL measured by SF-36 were 21.10 (95% CI: 6.57–35.63) and 44.40 (95% CI: 22.55–66.05), respectively. Rehabilitation did not significantly decrease intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (risk ratio, 2.02 [95% CI: 0.46–8.91], I2 = 0%; n = 75). ICU length of stay and hospital length of stay and muscle strength were not statistically significantly different and no adverse events were reported in both studies. The certainty of the evidence for these outcomes was “very low.” Data on ADL, return to work, and delirium were not available in any of the trials. Rehabilitation of patients with sepsis might not decrease ICU mortality, but might improve QOL. Further, well-designed trials measuring important outcomes will be needed to determine the benefit and harm of rehabilitation among patients with sepsis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Although opioids and pregabalin are widely used for cancer-related neuropathic pain (CNP), no clinical trials exist to determine which medications are effective when an opioid-pregabalin combination therapy fails.Objectives: We investigated the efficacy of duloxetine for CNP nonresponsive or intolerant to opioid-pregabalin combination therapy.Methods: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed at 12 specialized palliative care services in Japan. Patients with CNP average pain scores (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]-Item 5) ≥ 4 in the previous 24 hours and nonresponsive or intolerant to opioid-pregabalin combination therapy were eligible. Patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathies were excluded. Patients were administered duloxetine 20 mg/day titrated to 40 mg/day or placebo for 10 days. The primary endpoint was BPI-Item 5 on Day 10. Responder analysis measured proportions of patients with 30% and 50% pain decreases.Results: Seventy patients were enrolled. Complete case analysis revealed mean BPI-Item 5 on Day 10 of 4.03 for Group D vs. 4.88 for Group P (P = 0.053). Baseline observation carried forward analysis revealed mean BPI-Item 5 on Day 10 of 4.06 and 4.91 for Groups D and P, respectively (P = 0.048). Clinically meaningful pain improvement (≥30%) was reported by 44.1% (n = 15) of patients in Group D vs. 18.2% (n = 6) in Group P (P = 0.02); 32.4% (n = 11) vs. 3.0% (n = 1) of patients in Groups D and P, respectively, reported pain reduction ≥ 50% (P = 0.002).Conclusion: Adding duloxetine to opioid-pregabalin therapy might have clinical benefit in alleviating refractory CNP. Further studies are needed to conclude the efficacy of adding duloxetine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]