Search

This systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluate the impact of ultrasound‐guided subsheath versus extrasheath sciatic nerve blocks on postoperative wound pain in tibial and foot surgeries, crucial for effective pain management and patient recovery. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, this study used a PICO framework, focusing on patients undergoing tibial and foot surgeries and comparing the efficacy and safety of subsheath and extrasheath sciatic nerve blocks. The literature search spanned four databases without time restrictions, assessing various outcomes like success rate, onset time, duration of analgesia and complication rates. Quality assessment employed the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool, and statistical analyses included heterogeneity assessment, fixed‐effect and random‐effects models, sensitivity analysis and publication bias evaluation using funnel plots and Egger's linear regression test. From an initial pool of 1213 articles, six met the inclusion criteria. The subsheath group showed a significantly higher success rate of complete sensory blockade within 30 min compared with the extrasheath group (OR = 5.39; 95% CI: 2.82–10.28; p < 0.01). No significant differences were found in procedure duration or incidence of nerve‐related complications between the two techniques. The subsheath approach also demonstrated a quicker onset time of sensory blockade (MD = −8.57; 95% CI: −11.27 to −5.88; p < 0.01). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the results, and no significant publication bias was detected. Ultrasound‐guided subsheath sciatic nerve blocks are more effective than extrasheath blocks in achieving rapid and complete sensory blockade for tibial and foot surgeries, with a quicker onset time and comparable safety profile. Subsheath injections are thus recommended as a preferred method for anaesthesia and postoperative pain management in these surgical procedures, enhancing overall patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) often involves significant postoperative pain, necessitating effective analgesia. This meta‐analysis compares the analgesic efficacy of local infiltration anaesthesia (LIA) and femoral nerve block (FNB) in managing postoperative wound pain following TKA. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, this meta‐analysis was structured around the PICO framework, assessing studies that directly compared LIA and FNB in TKA patients. A comprehensive search across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was conducted without time restrictions. Studies were included based on specific criteria such as participant demographics, study design and outcomes like pain scores and opioid consumption. Quality assessment utilized the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The statistical approach was determined based on heterogeneity, with the choice of fixed‐ or random‐effects models guided by the I2 statistic. Sensitivity analysis and evaluation of publication bias using funnel plots and Egger's linear regression test were also conducted. From an initial pool of 1275 articles, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies conducted in various countries from 2007 to 2016. The meta‐analysis showed no significant difference in resting and movement‐related Visual Analogue Scale scores post‐TKA between the LIA and FNB groups. However, LIA was associated with significantly lower opioid consumption. The quality assessment revealed a low risk of bias in most studies, and the sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of these findings. There was no significant publication bias detected. Both LIA and FNB are effective in controlling postoperative pain in TKA patients, but LIA offers the advantage of lower opioid consumption. Its simplicity, cost‐effectiveness and opioid‐sparing nature make LIA the recommended choice for postoperative analgesia in knee replacement surgeries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common postsurgical complication. The early identification of its risk factors is the first step toward reducing POD. The predictive factors for POD in patients after major abdominal surgery remain obscure. Therefore, this meta‐analysis aimed to comprehensively summarize the risk factors of POD after major abdominal surgery. Methods: POD studies published between January, 1900 and June 2022 were obtained by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline. Two authors independently reviewed the studies to extract the risk factors and assessed the quality of related articles using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Data were recorded, and a meta‐analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.4.1. Results: Ten studies including total 2900 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, were eligible for analysis, 608 of whom developed POD, for a cumulative incidence of 21%. This pooled analysis suggested the statistically significant risk factors for POD were age, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, lower preoperative Mini‐Mental State Examination score, cognitive impairment, preoperative Katz‐ADL score <6, preoperative and postoperative hypoalbuminemia, lower preoperative insulin‐like growth factor‐1 levels, and longer duration of anesthesia. Conclusion: POD is common in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. This meta‐analysis identified risk factors that may aid the early detection of POD and play a prominent role in preventing POD. Key points: Our report was the first to comprehensively summarize the related risk factors for postoperative delirium (POD) after major abdominal surgery; the results of this pooled analysis suggested the statistically significant risk factors for POD were age, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, lower preoperative Mini‐Mental State Examination score, cognitive impairment, preoperative Katz‐ADL score <6, preoperative and postoperative hypoalbuminemia, lower preoperative insulin‐like growth factor‐1 levels, and longer durations of anesthesia, which may better predict the risk of POD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mutations in the STRC (MIM 606440) gene, inducing DFNB16, are considered a major cause of mild–moderate autosomal recessive non-syndromic hearing loss (ARNSHL). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the global prevalence and characteristics of STRC variations, important information required for genetic counseling. Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles published before January 2021. Results: The pooled prevalence of DFNB16 in GJB2-negative patients with hearing loss was 4.08% (95% CI: 0.0289–0.0573), and the proportion of STRC variants in the mild–moderate hearing loss group was 14.36%. Monoallelic mutations of STRC were 4.84% (95% CI: 0.0343–0.0680) in patients with deafness (non-GJB2) and 1.36% (95% CI: 0.0025–0.0696) in people with normal hearing. The DFNB16 prevalence in genetically confirmed patients (non-GJB2) was 11.10% (95% CI: 0.0716–0.1682). Overall pooled prevalence of deafness–infertility syndrome (DIS) was 36.75% (95% CI: 0.2122–0.5563) in DFNB16. The prevalence of biallelic deletions in STRC gene mutations was 70.85% (95% CI: 0.5824–0.8213). Conclusion: Variants in the STRC gene significantly contribute to mild–moderate hearing impairment. Moreover, biallelic deletions are a main feature of STRC mutations. Copy number variations associated with infertility should be seriously considered when investigating DFNB16. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the role of teriparatide in improving hip fracture healing and function to provide a clinical guide. Methods. The systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled studies evaluating teriparatide for elderly hip fractures. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan version 5.3. Results. This study included two RCTs and four retrospective studies comprising 607 patients, with 269 and 338 patients in the teriparatide and control groups, respectively. The quality of these six studies was moderate. Compared to the control group, teriparatide reduced the time to union (weighted mean difference WMD = − 1.95 ; 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.23–-0.68; P = 0.003) but did not improve the rate of fracture union at 3 months (odds ratio OR = 1.46 ; 95% CI: 0.50–4.24; P = 0.49) or 6 months (OR = 0.89 ; 95% CI: 0.44–1.81; P = 0.75). In addition, teriparatide did not decrease the complications, need for reoperation, mortality, rate of deformity after fracture healing, and subsequent fracture or improve hip function. Conclusions. The current limited evidence did not support that teriparatide improves fracture healing in hip fractures, due to study heterogeneity and various sources of biases. Further high-quality, large-sample trials are needed. This trial is registered with PROSPERO with registration number CRD42020152205. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the role of nonoperative treatment and volar locking plate (VLP) fixation in elderly patients with distal radial fracture. Methods: The systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies using VLP and nonoperative treatment for distal radial fractures in the elderly. Two investigators independently extracted data and evaluated the quality of the studies. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan version 5.3. Results: The five RCTs and six observational studies included 585 and 604 patients in the VLP and nonoperation groups, respectively. The quality of these 11 studies was moderate. Compared to nonoperation treatment, VLP did not improve the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) score (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], −3.58–−0.24; P = 0.09), decrease complications (odds ratio = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.51–2.19; P = 0.89), or improve range of motion in flexion, extension, pronation, supination, and radial deviation. The VLP group had better grip strength (WMD = 10.52; 95% CI, 6.19–14.86; P < 0.0001) and radiographic assessment than the nonoperation group. Conclusions: Although insufficient, the study evidence shows that VLP does not improve DASH scores, complications, or range of motion, but it might provide better grip strength and radiographic assessment than nonoperation treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim Primary biliary cirrhosis ( PBC) is a chronic and progressive cholestatic autoimmune liver disease. Although many studies have evaluated the association between many functional polymorphisms in the vitamin D receptor ( VDR) gene and PBC risk, debates still exist. Our aim is to evaluate the association between VDR gene polymorphisms, including TaqI (rs731236), BsmI (rs1544410), and ApaI (rs7975232), and the risk of PBC by a systematic review. Methods We searched literatures in Pub Med, SCOPUS, and EMBASE until July 2013. We calculated pooled odds ratios ( OR) and 95% confidence intervals ( CIs) using a fixed effects model or a random effects model for the risk to PBC associated with different VDR gene polymorphisms. And the heterogeneity assumption decided the effect model. Results A total of six relevant studies, with 1322 PBC cases and 2264 controls, were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that TaqI (rs731236) polymorphism was significantly associated with PBC risk (for T vs t OR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.63, 0.89, Pz = 0.001; TT + Tt vs tt OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.44, 0.86, Pz = 0.005; OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.58, 0.94, Pz = 0.016 for recessive model), while ApaI (rs7975232) or BsmI (rs1544410) polymorphism did not. Conclusion Based on current evidences from published studies, the cumulative effect of TaqI polymorphism in VDR was significantly associated with PBC. Larger studies with mixed ethnicity subjects and stratified by clinical and sub clinical characteristics are needed to validate our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Fish consumption may protect against colorectal cancer, but results from observational studies are inconsistent; therefore, a systematic review with a meta-analysis was conducted. Methods: Relevant studies were identified by a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to May 2011, with no restrictions. Reference lists from retrieved articles also were reviewed. Studies that reported odds ratio (OR) or relative risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between the consumption of fish and the risk of colorectal, colon, or rectal cancer were included. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. The risk estimate (hazard ratio, relative risk, or OR) of the highest and lowest reported categories of fish intake were extracted from each study and analyzed using a random-effects model. Results: Twenty-two prospective cohort and 19 case-control studies on fish consumption and colorectal cancer risk met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Our analysis found that fish consumption decreased the risk of colorectal cancer by 12% (summary OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95). The pooled ORs of colorectal cancer for the highest versus lowest fish consumption in case-control studies and cohort studies were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.72-0.95) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.86-1.01), respectively. There was heterogeneity among case-control studies (P <.001) but not among cohort studies. A significant inverse association was found between fish intake and rectal cancer (summary OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.97), and there was a modest trend seen between fish consumption and colon cancer (summary OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.81-1.14). This study had no publication bias. Conclusion: Our findings from this meta-analysis suggest that fish consumption is inversely associated with colorectal cancer. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]