Search

Copyright of Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research / Zhongguo Zuzhi Gongcheng Yanjiu is the property of Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

BACKGROUND: 3D printing technology was more and more widely used in spine surgery, and it had a good auxiliary surgery effect. However, there is currently no evidence-based medical evidence to confirm the efficacy and safety of 3D printing-assisted posterior osteotomy for spinal deformities. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the efficacy of 3D printing-assisted posterior osteotomy in the treatment of spinal deformity. METHODS: Such databases as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM were searched from their inception to December 2019 for the research investigating 3D printing in the treatment of spinal deformity. English and Chinese search terms were “3D printing”, “rapid prototyping”, “spinal deformity”. Literature review, data extraction, and quality evaluation were performed independently by two researchers. The meta-analyses were performed using the RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) Six literatures involving 282 patients were included. There were 139 cases in the 3D printing group and 143 cases in the conventional group. (2) Meta-analysis results showed that in the 3D printing group, the operation time and surgical radiation exposure time were shorter, and intraoperative blood loss was less than in the conventional group (P < 0.05). (3) Cobb angle, Cobb angle correction rate, screw placement accuracy, and Oswestry disability index were all superior to the conventional group (P < 0.05). (4) In terms of complications, the difference was not statistically significant between the 3D printing group and conventional group (P > 0.05). (5) Above data verified that 3D printing-assisted posterior osteotomy can significantly reduce operation time and intraoperative blood loss and improve the surgical effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid and alendronate sodium in the treatment of primary osteoporosis. Methods Used computer search PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang database, the search time was from the establishment of the database to December 2018, The modified Jadad scale and Cochrane risk bias assessment tool were used to evaluate the method ological quality of the included studies.Data were analyzed by Rev Man 5. 3 and StatalS. 0 software. Results Twelve studies involving 1 344 patients were included. Meta analysis result show that; There were significant difference(P<0.05) in the treatment of lumbar spine BMD after 12 months [SMD = 0.96, 95% C/(0.03,1.90) , P = 0.04] and 24 months[SMD = 1.70,95% C/(0.30,3. 11) ,P = 0.02] ,and femoral neck BMD after 12 months [SMD = 0.34,95% Cl (0.19,0.50) ,P< 0.000 1] , VAS score [MD = - 0.76,95% C/(- 0.93, - 0.58 ) , P< 0.000 01] , ODI [MD = - 10.48,95% Cl (-1 1. 38,-9. 58) ,P<(). 000 01]. The therapeutic effect of zoledronic acid was more effective than alendronate sodium.There were significant difference in adverse reaction [RR = 1.79, 95% C/(1.41,2. 28) , P < 0.000 01]. Zoledronic acid was less safe than alendronate sodium. Conclusion Compared with alendronate sodium, zoledronic acid could remarkably improve lumbar spine BMD,femoral neck BMD,effectively reduce VAS score,ODI,for which it could improve the quality of patient’s life significantly. However,there were relatively many adverse reactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]