Abstract

PURPOSE Leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) and advanced-platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) that are derivatives of PRF (platelet-rich fibrin) accelerate wound healing and reduce postoperative sequelae after tooth extraction. This network meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness of L-PRF and A-PRF in mandibular third molar extraction and provide suggestions for alleviating postoperative symptoms and signs. METHODS A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and SinoMed databases up to Oct 9, 2020. Three types of randomized controlled trials were included to investigate the effects of PRF derivatives after extracting mandibular third molars: A-PRF and L-PRF groups; A-PRF and control groups; L-PRF and control groups. Their relative effectiveness and ranking were assessed using network meta-analysis and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) with STATA 16.0 and Revman 5.3, respectively. RESULTS Ten randomized controlled trials were included, with 307 mandibular third molar extraction patients involved. The results showed that A-PRF had the best effect among the 3 groups in improving postoperative pain on the third (SUCRA = 98.2%) and seventh (SUCRA = 88.4%) days; L-PRF promoted soft tissue healing (MD=-0.90, 95% CI [-1.40, -0.40], P = .0004) on the seventh day compared with the control. However, other comparisons showed no significant differences (P > .05). CONCLUSION The limited results confirmed that PRF derivatives only reduced some postoperative symptoms and did not prevent them all. Application of A-PRF after third molar extraction reduced postoperative pain, and L-PRF improved the degree of soft tissue healing.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of different fluids on critically ill patients who need fluid resuscitation through a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Data sources: Electronic databases were searched up to March 2018 for randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of different fluids in critically ill patients. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the incident of acute kidney injury (AKI) and risk of receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT). A Bayesian NMA was conducted, and the quality of evidence contributing to each network estimate was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. Results: We deemed 49 trials eligible, including 40,910 participants. The quality of evidence was rated as moderate in most comparisons. There was no significant difference among resuscitation fluids in mortality. NMA at the 9-node level showed the most effective fluid was balanced crystalloid (BC) (80.79%, the ranking of resuscitation fluid based on cumulative probability plots and surface under the cumulative ranking curves [SUCRAs]). NMA at the 10-node level showed that the most effective fluid was Plasma-Lyte (77.52%). Results of sensitivity analyses in mortality did not reveal any significant changes in the findings for primary outcomes. High-molecular-weight hetastarch (H-HES) was associated with an increased incidence of AKI when compared with gelatin (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.19-0.94), low-molecular-weight hetastarch (L-HES; OR, 0.50; 95% CrI, 0.30-0.87), BC (OR, 0.55; 95% CrI, 0.34-0.88), and normal saline (OR, 0.56; 95% CrI, 0.34-0.93). Meanwhile, H-HES was also associated with an increased risk of receiving RRT when compared with BC (OR, 0.51; 95% CrI, 0.27-0.93) and normal saline (OR, 0.52; 95% CrI, 0.24-0.96). Conclusion: BCs, especially the Plasma-Lyte, are presumably the best choice for most critically ill patients who need fluid resuscitation. Meanwhile, the use of H-HES was associated with an increased incidence of AKI and risk of receiving RRT. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42017072728).