1.
Additive effectiveness of autologous platelet-rich fibrin in the treatment of intrabony defects: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis
Li A, Yang H, Zhang J, Chen S, Wang H, Gao Y
Medicine. 2019;98(11):e14759
Abstract
BACKGROUND This meta-analysis was performed to determine the additive effectiveness of autologous platelet-rich fibrin in the treatment of intrabony defects in chronic periodontitis patients. METHODS Pertinent studies were identified by a search in Medline, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The trials searched were evaluated for eligibility. Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager software was used to perform the meta-analyses. RESULTS Twelve eligible clinical trials were included. Pooled data found that adjunctive platelet-rich fibrin exactly yielded a significantly superior probing depth reduction compared with open flap debridement alone (weighted mean difference, 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.08; P < .00001). The clinical attachment level (CAL) gain after treatment for 9 months was higher in patients treated with platelet-rich fibrin plus open flap debridement group than in open flap debridement-treated patients (weighted mean difference, 1.29; 95% confidence interval 0.96- 1.61; P < .00001). Similarly, the meta-analysis demonstrated that platelet-rich fibrin was superior to single open flap debridement with respect to gingival marginal level change (weighted mean difference, 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.58; P < .00001). Regarding the hard tissue radiographic parameters, including defect depth reduction and percentage of fill defects in bone, adjunctive platelet-rich fibrin yielded significantly superior results compared with open flap debridement alone. CONCLUSION Adjunctive use of platelet-rich fibrin with open flap debridement significantly improves fill defects when compared to open flap debridement alone. However, additional powered studies with much larger sample sizes are needed to obtain a more concrete conclusion.
2.
Neuroendoscopic minimally invasive surgery and small bone window craniotomy hematoma clearance in the treatment of hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage
Gui C, Gao Y, Hu D, Yang X
Pakistan journal of medical sciences. 2019;35(2):377-382
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the effects of neuroendoscopic minimally invasive surgery and small bone window craniotomy hematoma clearance through comparing clinical indicators of the two operation modes and to provide a reference for selection of proper minimally invasive surgery. Methods: One hundred and twenty-six patients with hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage who received diagnosis and treatment in our hospital between December 2015 and December 2017 were selected and grouped into an observation group (n=63) and a control group (n=63) using random number table. Patients in the observation group were treated by neuroendoscopic surgery, while patients in the control group were treated by small bone window craniotomy. The surgical condition, clinical effect and prognosis of the two groups were analyzed and compared. Results: Patients in the observation group completed surgery in a shorter time and bled less during operation compared to the control group, and the hematoma clearance rate of the observation group was obviously higher than that of the control group; the differences had statistical significance (P<0.05). The nerve deficiency scale (NDS) scores of the two groups at the postoperative 3(rd) month were lower than those before surgery (P<0.05), and the activity of daily life (ADL) score at the postoperative 3(rd) month was higher than that before surgery (P<0.05). The observation group had lower NDS score and higher ADL score compared to the control group, and the differences had statistical significance (P<0.05). The incidence of complications of the observation group was lower than that of the control group after surgery, and the rate of favourable prognosis of the observation group was higher than that of the control group at the postoperative 3(rd) month (P<0.05). Conclusion: Neuroendoscopic surgery is more effective and safe, causes less bleeding and has better prognosis and nerve function recovery compared to small bone window craniotomy in the treatment of hypertensive cerebral hemorrhage.
3.
Is wound drainage necessary in hip arthroplasty? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Chen ZY, Gao Y, Chen W, Li X, Zhang YZ
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatologie. 2014;24((6):):939-46.
Abstract
PURPOSE The use of closed suction drainage systems for hip arthroplasty (HA) is a common practice. However, the effectiveness and safety are still questionable. Thus, the aim of this meta-analysis was to review the advantages and adverse effects of closed suction drainage systems in hip arthroplasty. METHODS All randomized or quasi-randomized trials comparing the use of closed suction drainage systems with no drainage systems for hip arthroplasty were searched in PubMed, Medicine, EMBASE and other internet databases. We assessed the methodological quality of the studies and abstracted the relevant data independently. RESULTS Sixteen studies involving 1,663 participants with surgical wounds comparing HA with and without the use of drainage were included in our analysis. Our results demonstrated blood transfusion was required more frequently the same as the persistent discharge in those who received drains. No significant differences in the incidence of wound hematoma, dehiscence or deep vein thrombosis were found between those allocated to drains and the non-drained wounds. Wound infection and the range of movement of the joint after surgery were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Based on the current evidence, there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of closed suction drainage in hip arthroplasty. At the same time, our meta-analysis study suggested that using of closed suction drainage in HA increased requirement for postoperative blood transfusion. However, there is a moderate possibility of selection bias and publication bias in this review. Because of the limited number of studies which may weaken the strength of the evidence of our results, more samples, high-quality randomized trials are needed to increase the reliability of evidences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II.