1.
The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma applicated in spinal fusion surgery: A meta-analysis
Yu H, Zhou Z, Yu B, Sun T, Tang Q, Jia Y
Frontiers in surgery. 2022;9:924753
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of the application of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in spinal fusion surgery on the fusion rate of the spine. METHODS A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct databases was conducted to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) or observational cohort studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of PRP in spinal fusion. Data on final fusion rate, changes in the visual analog scale (VAS), estimated blood loss (EBL), and operative time was collected from the eligible studies for meta-analysis. Patients were divided into PRP and non-PRP groups according to whether PRP was used during the spinal fusion procedure. RESULTS According to the selection criteria, 4 randomized controlled trials and 8 cohort studies with 833 patients and 918 levels were included. The outcomes indicated that PRP application is associated with a lower fusion rat (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: (0.43, 0.89), P = 0.009) at final follow-up (>24 months). Subgroup analysis showed a lower rate of spinal fusion in the PRP group compared to the non-PRP group (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: (0.21, 0.58), P < 0.001) when spinal fusion was assessed using only anterior-posterior radiographs. When the bone graft material was a combination of autologous bone + artificial bone, the spinal fusion rate was lower in the PRP group than in the non-PRP group (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: (0.16, 0.71), P = 0.004). The PRP and non-PRP groups showed no significant differences in VAS changes at the 24th postoperative month (WMD = 0.36, 95% CI: (-0.37, 1.09), P = 0.33); Application of PRP does not reduce the estimated blood loss (WMD = -86.03, 95% CI: (-188.23, 16.17), P = 0.10). In terms of operation time, using PRP does not prolong operation time (WMD = -3.74, 95% CI: (-20.53, 13.04), P = 0.66). CONCLUSION Compared with bone graft fusion alone, PRP cannot increase the rate of spinal fusion. Inappropriate methods of spinal fusion assessment or mixing PRP with artificial/allograft bone may have been responsible for the lower rate of spinal fusion in the PRP group. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION doi: 10.37766/inplasy2022.5.0055.
2.
Safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in severely and critically ill patients with COVID-19: A systematic review with meta-analysis
Wenjing L, Yuanzheng F, Li JY, Tang LV, Yu H
Aging. 2020;12
Abstract
BACKGROUND The rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in more than 24 million infections and 821 thousand deaths. However, a vaccine or specific drug is absent up to this date and more attention has been focused on the use of convalescent plasma(CP). Several articles have described the CP treatment for patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. But a comprehensive systematic review with meta-analysis about the safety and efficacy of CP transfusion in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients has not been published. We conducted this study for a better understanding of the therapeutic significance of CP for patients with COVID-19. RESULTS A fixed-effect model (I(2)=0.0%) was used on the 9 articles for quantitative analysis showing that the mortality of patients with COVID-19 treated with or without CP was statistically significant (RR=0.57 [0.44-0.74]). Subgroup analysis showed that the severely ill patients benefited more from CP than the critically ill patients. Our study concluded that clinical improvement in severe COVID-19 cases were obvious. Adverse events were few and the effect of convalescent plasma on reducing viral load was apparent. CONCLUSIONS Convalescent plasma therapy appears safe for COVID-19, and plasma treated patients have marked reductions in their serum viral loads and most are virus negative after transfusion. Patients with severe COVID-19 benefit more from the convalescent plasma transfusion than critical patients, and patients treated in early stage are more likely to survive. METHODS We reviewed the scientific literature from four databases published from December 8, 2019 to August 20, 2020. Statistical analyses were performed with STATA (version 15.1; Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). The frequency with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was assessed using fixed effect model in analyzing the overall mortality and p <0.05 was considered statistically significant.