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.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The safety of perioperative intravenous hydroxyethyl starch (HES) products, specifically HES 130/0.4, continues to be the source of much debate. The aim of this meta-analysis was to update the existing evidence and gain further insight into the clinical effects of HES 130/0.4 on postoperative outcomes for volume replacement therapy in surgical patients. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to March 2020 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on perioperative use of HES 130/0.4 in adult surgical patients. The primary outcome was postoperative mortality and secondary outcomes were the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT). The analysis was performed using the random-effects method and the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We performed the risk-of-bias assessment of eligible studies and assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS Twenty-five RCTs with 4111 participants were finally included. There were no statistical differences between HES 130/0.4 and other fluids in mortality at 30 days (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.86, p = 0.20), the incidence of AKI (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.53, p = 0.07), or requirement for RRT (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.53, p = 0.43). Overall, there was a moderate certainty of evidence for all the outcomes. There was no subgroup difference related to the type of surgery (p = 0.17) in the incidence of AKI. As for the type of comparator fluids, however, there was a trend that was not statistically significant (p = 0.06) towards the increased incidence of AKI in the HES 130/0.4 group (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.54) compared with the crystalloid group (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.91). Subgroup analyses according to the type of surgery demonstrated consistent findings. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the use of HES 130/0.4 for volume replacement therapy compared with other fluids resulted in no significant difference in postoperative mortality or kidney dysfunction among surgical patients. Given the absent evidence of confirmed benefit and the potential trend of increased kidney injury, we cannot recommend the routine clinical use of HES 130/0.4 for volume replacement therapy in surgical patients from the perspective of benefit/risk profile. However, the results need to be interpreted with caution due to the limited sample size, and further well-powered RCTs are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO registry reference: CRD42020173058.

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.

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic is persistent worldwide. A prior meta-analysis suggested the association of thrombocytopenia (TCP) with more severe COVID-19 illness and high mortality. Considering newly published studies, we updated the previous meta-analysis to confirm and explain the association of TCP with COVID-19 severity and multiple outcomes. Twenty-four studies with 5637 patients with COVID-19 were included in this study. The weighted incidence of TCP in COVID-19 was 12.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9%-17.7%). Data synthesis showed that the platelet number was lower in patients with either more severe illness or poor outcomes and even lower in nonsurvivors, with weighted mean differences of -24.56 × 109/L, -22.48 × 109/L, and -49.02 × 109/L, respectively. The meta-analysis of binary outcomes (with and without TCP) indicated the association between TCP and 3-fold enhanced risk of a composite outcome of intensive care unit admission, progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome, and mortality (odds ratio [OR], 3.49; 95% CI, 1.57-7.78). Subgroup analysis by endpoint events suggested TCP to be significantly associated with mortality (OR, 7.37; 95% CI, 2.08-26.14). Overall, the present comprehensive meta-analysis indicated that approximately 12% of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have TCP, which also represents a sign of more severe illness and poor outcomes.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Compression therapy is commonly used to reduce lower limb swelling and blood loss after knee surgery. This study was performed to investigate whether modified Robert Jones bandage (MRJB) as a postoperative compression therapy is necessary for enhanced-recovery primary total knee arthroplasty without the tourniquet application. METHODS In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 90 patients were grouped into 2 groups randomly. The experimental group received compression therapy with MRJB from toes to thigh for 24 h and the control group received no compression therapy. Knee swelling, blood loss, range of motion (ROM), pain, patient reported comfort level and complications were recorded. RESULTS No significant differences were observed between the two groups when we compared knee swelling. Similarly, no significant difference on postoperative blood loss, pain, ROM, complications was found. However, patients in control group had significantly higher comfort ratings than compression group during the first 24 h. CONCLUSIONS MRJB is not routinely indicated in enhanced-recovery primary total knee arthroplasty without tourniquet application. TRIAL REGISTRATION The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( ChiCTR-INR-16010177 ) dated 18th December 2016.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN This study is randomized controlled trial. PURPOSE To evaluate the effect of tranexamic acid (TXA) on reducing postoperative blood loss in posterior approach lumbar surgery for degenerative lumbar instability with stenosis. METHODS Sixty patients with degenerative lumbar instability with stenosis were randomized into TXA and control groups, receiving 15mg/kg body weight of TXA or placebo (0.9% Sodium chloride solution) intravenously, respectively, before the skin incision was made. The operation of pedicle screw system fixation was performed for all patients, and then selective laminectomy and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) were carried out. Intraoperative and postoperative blood loss were compared between the two groups. And the complication of TXA was also investigated. RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences between the TXA and control groups in terms of age, sex, body mass index, and operation time. There was no significantly difference in intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. However, in the TXA group, postoperative blood loss was significantly lower than that in the control group (13.0%). Especially, postoperative blood loss during the first 12h was reduced by 29.9% as compared to the control group. There were no thromboembolic events or other complications occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS Preoperative single-dose TXA can significantly reduce postoperative blood loss in posterior approach lumbar surgery, and there were no significant side effects.