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]

Objective: This study investigated Hounsfield unit (HU) differences in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery patients with and without proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), a common complication. Summary Background Data: Previous studies have identified osteoporosis as a PJK risk factor, and CT scanning is a valuable tool for detecting osteoporosis through HU measurements. The study aimed to determine the level of HU difference between patients diagnosed with and without PJK. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that assessed HUs for ASD surgery patients who developed PJKs. We searched in PubMed, Embase, Ovid, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to October 2022 and had two authors extract data and evaluate bias. Results: Four cohort studies with 250 patients were included in this study. Measurements of HUs at upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) and UIV+1 showed significant differences between PJKs and non-PJKs. (Mean difference (MD) at UIV: −25.36, 95% CI: −39.16, −11.56, p = 0.0003; MD at UIV+1: −21.06, 95% CI: −38.25, −3.88, p = 0.02). Conclusions: The study found measuring HUs of UIV and UIV+1 can predict the occurrence of PJK in ASD surgery. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Spinal cord injury (SCI) often involves multimodal pain control. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cannabinoid use for the reduction of pain in SCI patients. Methods and Findings: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the efficacy (e.g., pain relief) or safety (e.g., adverse events) of cannabinoids in patients with SCI, from inception to 25 December 2021. The study quality and the quality of evidence were evaluated by Cochrane ROB 2.0 and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations system (GRADE), respectively. We used the random-effects model to perform the meta-analysis. From a total of 9,500 records, we included five RCTs with 417 SCI patients in the systematic review and meta-analysis. We judged all five of the included RCTs as being at high risk of bias. This meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in pain relief between the cannabinoids and placebo in SCI patients (mean difference of mean differences of pain scores: −5.68; 95% CI: −13.09, 1.73; p = 0.13; quality of evidence: very low), but higher odds of adverse events were found in SCI patients receiving cannabinoids (odds ratio: 3.76; 95% CI: 1.98, 7.13; p < 0.0001; quality of evidence: moderate). Conclusion: The current best evidence suggests that cannabinoids may not be beneficial for pain relief in SCI patients, but they do increase the risks of adverse events, including dizziness, somnolence, and dysgeusia, compared to the placebo. Cannabinoids should not be regularly suggested for pain reduction in SCI patients. Updating the systematic reviews and meta-analyses by integrating future RCTs is necessary to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]