Abstract

The intra-operative use of tourniquet in open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of ankle fractures remains a topic of debate. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing clinical outcomes of patients undergoing ankle ORIF with tourniquet use versus a control group where no tourniquet was used. A systematic review was performed with reference to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines of the Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies were included if they were an RCT comparing tourniquet and no-tourniquet in ankle ORIF. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan, and p-value <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. On completion of the literature search, a total of 4 RCTs including 350 ankles (52.6% males), with a mean age of 47.1 ± 5.7 years were included. There were 173 patients in the tourniquet group (T), versus 177 patients in the no tourniquet control group (NT), with nonsignificant differences between the groups for age, gender and body mass index demographics (all p > .05). There were significantly shorter duration of surgery, with significantly higher patient-reported rates of pain levels at day 2 postoperatively (both p < .001) in the T group. Additionally, there were significantly greater ranges of ankle motion at 6 weeks postoperatively (p = .03), with nonsignificant differences reported incidence of wound infections and deep vein thrombosis (p = .056 and p = .130 respectively) between the groups. In conclusion, current evidence suggests that although intraoperative tourniquet usage in cases of ankle ORIF results in significant reductions in duration of surgery, this may be at the expense of higher patient-reported pain scores and reduced range of motion postoperatively.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Treatment of large bone defects and fracture healing complications (delayed and non-union) presents a substantial challenge for orthopaedic surgeons. Given that bone healing requires mechanical stability as well as a favourable biological microenvironment, orthobiologics such as Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) may have a significant clinical role to play. AIMS To perform a systematic review of the available literature to assess the clinical effect of PRP, with or without other orthobiologics, on bone healing. METHOD Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Clinical studies of any evidence, assessing effect of PRP with or without other orthobiologics on bone healing, were included. A qualitative analysis was carried out on the clinical and radiological outcomes reported. RESULT 27 articles with 1631 patients (mean age = 43.56, 57.1% male, mean follow-up = 17.27 months) were included in the qualitative. Of the 27 studies, 13 dealt with fracture complications (delayed or non-unions), 7 with acute fracture healing, 4 with tibial osteotomies and lengthening procedures and 3 with lumbar spine pathology. 18/27 studies showed a clinical benefit of PRP, 8/27 showed no significant effect, and 1/27 showed a worse outcome with PRP. CONCLUSION Our review suggests PRP may play a clinical role in bone healing but further randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using standardised outcomes should be performed to establish its efficacy.

Abstract

Since the emergence of the disease in late December 2019, numerous studies have been published to date regarding clinical, laboratory and treatment aspects associated with COVID-19. The present study attempts to compare and unify the clinical, para-clinical and therapeutic aspects that have come to light regarding coronavirus disease-19 (COVID 19), mainly in adults. Between April 2020 and September 2021, a comprehensive systematic literature review was performed, which we added to from our own medical experiences. The search was performed on the PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar databases, comprising studies with analyzable data that were identified alongside studies and documents containing general scientific data. All published studies were written in English, and were from different countries. A 95% confidence interval (CI95) was also calculated for almost each study using the Wilson formula. When compared with preliminary reports between December 2019 and January 2020, the most frequent symptoms were still identified as being fever (68.6%; CI95: 67.5-69.7) and cough (72.7%; CI95: 71.7-73.8). Nevertheless, asymptomatic cases also increased (by 21.4%; CI95: 16.6-27.1). Severe and critical cases accounted for 10.4% (CI95: 9.6-11.1) of all cases. The mean fatality rate was found to be 4% (CI95: 3.6-4.5). The primary co-morbidity found was hypertension (28.9%; CI95: 27-30.8), followed by other underlying cardiovascular diseases (15.4%; CI95: 13.9-16.9) and diabetes (14.5%; CI95: 13.1-16.1). The majority of studies showed lower white blood cell numbers with neutropenia and lymphopenia, and lower platelet levels. The levels of the biomarkers C-reaction protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were positive in all studied cases alongside other lab tests, such as examining the D-dimer levels and those of other hepatic, cardiac and renal injury markers. The procalcitonin level was also found to be elevated in many cases, resulting in high usage of antibiotics (83.7%; CI95: 81.2-85.9). Approximately 31.6% (CI95: 29.1-34.1) of the patients required non-invasive ventilation, whereas 9.9% (CI95: 8.1-12.1) of the patients were intubated or placed on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The most used antivirals were ribavirin (67.3%; CI95: 63.4-70.9), oseltamivir (52.5%; CI95: 49.4-55.5) and Arbidol™ (34.5%; CI95: 32-37.1). General admittance to the intensive care unit was ~7.2% (CI95: 6.5-7.9) of patients.

Abstract

AIMS: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of administration of LMWH and UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS AND RESULTS We systematically searched several databases and included observational studies or clinical trials that compared the outcomes of administration of LMWH and UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A total of nine studies comprising 9637 patients were included. Metanalysis showed that LMWH administration was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality, and 28/30-day mortality compared with UFH administration ([RR 0.44; 95%CI 0.32-0.61; I2:87.9%] and [RR 0.45; 95%CI 0.24-0.86; I2:78.4%], respectively). Patient with LMWH had shorter duration of hospital and ICU length of stay compared with UFH ([WMD -2.20; 95%CI -3.01 to -1.40; I2:0%] and [WMD -1.41; 95%CI -2.20 to -0.63; I2:0%], respectively). The risk of ICU admission or mechanical ventilation was lower in patients who received LMWH than those who received UFH (RR 0.67; 95%CI 0.55-0.81; I2:67.3%). However, there was no difference in the incidence of bleeding with LMWH compared with UFH (RR 0.27; 95%CI 0.07-1.01; I2:64.6%). CONCLUSION Our meta-analysis showed that administration of LMWH was associated with better outcomes compared with UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Prospective cohorts and RCTs are urgently needed in exploring the definitive effect of LMWH to provide direct high-certainty evidence. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021271977.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The effectiveness of the Doppler Endoscopic Probe (DEP) remains unclear in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). We thus performed a systematic review characterizing the effectiveness of DEP in patients with NVUGIB addressing this question. METHODS A literature search was done until July 2021 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science. A series of meta-analyses were performed assessing outcomes amongst observational and interventional studies for DEP signal positive and negative lesions as well as DEP-assisted versus standard endoscopies. The primary outcome was "overall rebleeding"; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, bleeding-related mortality, need for surgery, length of stay, ICU stay and angiography. RESULTS Fourteen studies were included from 1911 citations identified: Observational studies compared bleeding lesions with DEP positive versus DEP negative signals (11 studies n=800 pre-hemostasis, and n=148 with post-hemostasis data from 5 studies). Three interventional studies (n=308) compared DEP-assisted to standard endoscopy management. DEP signal positive versus negative lesions both prior to or following any possible hemostasis were at greater risk of overall rebleeding (OR=6.54 (2.36; 18.11, and OR=25.96; (6.74; 100.0), respectively). The use of DEP during upper endoscopy significantly reduced overall rebleeding rates (OR=0.27 (0.14; 0.54). When removing outcomes analysis for which only one study was available, all evaluable outcomes were improved with DEP characterization of management guidance except for all-cause mortality. DISCUSSION Although low certainty evidence, DEP-related information improves on sole visual prediction of rebleeding in NVUGIB, with DEP-guided management yielding decreased overall rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality and need for surgery.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Many studies have documented the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) alongside anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) in the management of ACL injury, but evidence on the benefits of PRP in improving the clinical outcomes of ACLR is inconsistent. PURPOSE To help in our understanding, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of PRP on patient-reported functional scores, the clinical assessments of knee function and structure, and complications. STUDY DESIGN Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS We searched 9 online databases for RCTs published in English or Chinese that examined the effects of PRP on ACLR. The primary outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores. The secondary outcomes included KT-1000 arthrometer, pivot-shift test, Lysholm and Tegner scores, tunnel widening, graft characterization, and complications. Subgroup analyses were performed according to time of assessments. Fixed- and random-effects models were selected for data analysis. RESULTS A total of 14 studies were included. When PRP was injected to graft tunnels, the pooled VAS scores of the 2 groups were similar (P = .31), and the subgroup analysis found that VAS and IKDC only improved at 3 months postoperatively (P = .0003 and P < .00001, respectively). When PRP was used at the bone-patellar tendon-bone harvest sites, VAS was decreased in the first 6 months postoperatively (P < .00001), whereas IKDC score was not remarkably different (P = .07). After PRP injection, Lysholm scores at 3 months postoperatively was different between the 2 groups (P < .00001), but the Tegner scores (P = .86), KT-1000 measurements (P = .12), the positive rate of pivot-shift test (P = .64), the enlargement of tunnels (femoral, P = .91; tibial, P = .80), and the characterization of grafts (P = .05) were not different. No difference in complications was found in either group. CONCLUSION PRP applied alongside ACLR could reduce postoperative pain and improve knee function in the short and medium terms but is ineffective in the long term. PRP does not improve knee stability and the enlargement of tunnels and does not accelerate the healing of grafts. Further studies would be required.

Abstract

PURPOSE Cancer patients with COVID-19 likely express biomarker changes in circulation. However, the biomarkers used in SARS-CoV-2 infected cancer patients for COVID-19 severity and prognosis are largely unclear. Therefore, this systematic review aims to determine what biomarkers were measured in cancer patients with COVID-19 and their prognostic utility. METHODS A systematic literature review in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was performed on June 16th, 2021. The search keywords coronavirus, neoplasm, biomarkers, and disease progression were used to filter out 17 eligible studies, which were then carefully evaluated. RESULTS A total of 4,168 patients, 16 types of cancer, and 60 biomarkers were included. Seven up-regulated markers, including CRP, d-dimer, ferritin, IL-2R, IL-6, LDH, and PCT, were identified in eligible studies. Albumin and hemoglobin were significantly down-regulated in cancer patients with COVID-19. Moreover, we observed that the SARS-CoV-2 infected cancer patients with lower CRP, ferritin, and LDH levels successfully survived from COVID-19 treatments. CONCLUSION Several important clinical biomarkers, such as CRP, ferritin, and LDH, may serve as the prognostic markers to predict the outcomes following COVID-19 treatment and monitor the deterioration of COVID-19 in cancer patients.

Abstract

AIM: The ideal route of tranexamic acid (TXA) administration in total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. This study aims to identify the optima route of TXA administration in THA or TKA. METHODS PUBMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL database were systematically searched until 4 August 2021 for randomised studies that compared intravenous (IV) or intra-articular (IA) administration of TXA in THA or TKA. RESULTS Sixty-seven studies enrolling 8335 patients (IA: 4162; IV: 4173) were eligible for quantitative and qualitative analysis. Comparable results were demonstrated in the incidence of venous thromboembolisation (OR:0.96, p = 0.84), total blood loss (MD: - 9.05, p = 0.36), drain output (MD: - 7.36, p = 0.54), hidden blood loss (MD: - 6.85, p = 0.47), postoperative haemoglobin level (MD: 0.01, p = 0.91), haemoglobin drop (MD: - 0.10, p = 0.22), blood transfusion rate (OR: 0.99, p = 0.87), total adverse events (OR: 1.12, p = 0.28), postoperative range of motion (MD: 1.08, p = 0.36), postoperative VAS pain score (MD: 0.13, p = 0.24) and postoperative D-dimer level (MD: 0.61, p = 0.64). IV route of TXA administration was associated with significantly longer length of hospital stay compared to IA route of administration (MD: - 0.22, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION In this meta-analysis, both IV and IA route of TXA administration were equally effective in managing blood loss and postoperative outcomes in lower limb joints arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level 1. PROSPERO Registration CRD42021271355.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Edema is one of the cardinal clinical features of nephrotic syndrome (NS). It may vary from mild periorbital edema to severe generalized edema (anasarca). In patients where edema does not improve with prednisone therapy, the most common supportive medications are diuretics and albumin. However, due to the complex pathophysiology of edema formation in NS patients resulting in intravascular normovolemia or hypovolemia, optimal therapy for edema is still debated. We conducted a systematic review with the objective of evaluating the change in urine volume and urine sodium excretion after treatment with furosemide only versus furosemide with albumin in edematous patients with NS. OBJECTIVES (1) To evaluate efficacy of furosemide alone versus furosemide with albumin in the treatment of nephrotic edema in adults and children. (2) To compare the harms and benefits of different doses of furosemide for treating nephrotic edema. SEARCH METHODS The search included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in English and French using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL Trials Registry of the Cochrane Collaboration using the Ovid interface. ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all RCTs and randomized cross-over studies in which furosemide and furosemide plus albumin are used in the treatment of children or adults with nephrotic edema. We excluded patients with hypoalbuminemia of non-renal origin and severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) with a glomerular filtration rate below 30 ml/min/1.74 m(2) and patients with congenital NS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS All abstracts were independently assessed by at least two authors to determine which studies met the inclusion criteria. Information on study design, methodology, and outcome data (urine volume, urine sodium excretion, adverse effects) from each identified study was entered into a separate data sheet. The differences in outcomes between the types of therapy were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS The search yielded 525 records, and after screening, five studies were included in the systematic review and four of those studies in the meta-analysis. One study had high risk of bias and the remaining three studies were deemed to have some concerns. Urine excretion was greater after treatment with furosemide and albumin versus furosemide (SMD 0.85, 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.38). Results for sodium excretion were inconclusive (SMD 0.37, 95%CI =  - 0.28 to 1.02). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The current evidence is not sufficient to make definitive conclusions about the role of albumin in treating nephrotic edema. High-quality randomized studies with adequate samples sizes are needed. Including an assessment of intravascular volume status may be helpful. TRIAL REGISTRATION Prospero: CRD4201808979. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.

Abstract

Arterial and venous thrombotic events in COVID-19 cause significant morbidity and mortality among patients. Although international guidelines agree on the need for anticoagulation, it is unclear whether full-dose heparin anticoagulation confers additional benefits over prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of heparin full-dose anticoagulation in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. We searched Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, medRxiv.org and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials dated up to April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing full-dose heparin anticoagulation to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation or standard treatment in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients were included in our pooled analysis. The primary endpoint was the rate of major thrombotic events and the co-primary endpoint was the rate of major bleeding events. We identified 4 studies, all of them multicenter, randomizing 2926 patients. Major thrombotic events were 23/1524 (1.5%) in full-dose heparin anticoagulation versus 57/1402 (4.0%) in prophylactic-dose [relative risk (RR) 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.62; p˂0.01; I(2) = 0%]. Clinical relevant bleeding events occurred in 1.7% (26/1524) among patients treated with heparin full anticoagulation dose compared to 1.1% (15/1403) in prophylactic-dose group (RR 1.60; 95% CI 0.85-3.03; p = 0.15; I(2) = 20%). Mortality was 6.6% (101/1524) versus 8.6% (121/1402) (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.33-1.19; p = 0.15). In this meta-analysis of high quality multicenter randomized trials, full-dose anticoagulation with heparin was associated with lower rate of major thrombotic events without differences in bleeding risk and mortality in hospitalized non critically ill COVID-19 patients.Study registration PROSPERO, review no. CRD42022301874.