1.
A comparative study on the efficacy of robot of stereotactic assistant and frame-assisted stereotactic drilling, drainage for intracerebral hematoma in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage
Liang L, Li X, Dong H, Gong X, Wang G
Pakistan journal of medical sciences. 2022;38(7):1796-1801
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare the clinical efficacy of robot of stereotactic assistant (ROSA) and frame-assisted stereotactic drilling and drainage for intracerebral hematoma in hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (HICH). METHODS A total of 142 patients with HICH treated in Baoding First Central Hospital from January 2018 to January 2020 were selected and divided into two groups using a random number table. The ROSA group was treated with a robot of stereotactic assistant, while the frame group underwent frame-assisted stereotactic drilling and drainage for intracerebral hematoma. Surgical duration, postoperative extubation time and complications were compared between the two groups. Venous blood (5 mL) was collected before and three days after surgery. The levels of inflammatory factors [tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6)], as well as neurological function indexes [neuron-specific enolase (NSE), nerve growth factor (NGF) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF)] were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS The surgical duration, postoperative extubation time, and incidences of infection and postoperative rehemorrhage in the ROSA group were lower than those in the frame group (P < 0.05). In the ROSA group, postoperative TNF-α, hs-CRP, IL-6 and NSE levels were significantly lower while NGF and BDNF levels were higher than those in the frame group (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION Compared with frame-assisted stereotactic drilling and drainage for intracerebral hematoma, ROSA in HICH treatment shortens the surgical duration and postoperative extubation time, reduces the risks of infection and rehemorrhage and decreases inflammatory level, which is helpful for the recovery of neurological function.
2.
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.