Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to review the roles of using external fixation to rescue the patients who sustained arterial injuries in the lower legs.Methods: Demographics, surgical treatment and outcomes in 88 patients with lower leg arterial injuries treated by external fixation at two trauma centers from 2009 to 2018 were reviewed. The primary outcome was the rate of successful lower leg salvage, while secondary outcomes were complications and functional recovery.Results:80 patients (90 legs) maintained a successful lower leg salvage. The patients were followed up for an average of 15.5±5.5 months. 6 patients (8 pins) experienced pin-tract infection, pins loosening happened in 2 patients (4 pins), 7 patients (7 legs) developed wound superficial infection, 3 patients (3 legs) with a deep infection developed osteomyelitis, 16 patients (17 legs) suffered the bone nonunion or bone defect. The average healing time of fracture was 5.6±4.3months. The maintain of external fixation average time was 5.8±3.6 months. Conclusion: With correctly judging the condition of limb ischemia, mastering reasonably the operation indications, and preventing complications, good clinical effects can be achieved when external fixation is used.Level of evidence: Retrospective cohort, level IV.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to review the roles of using external fixation to rescue the patients who sustained arterial injuries in the lower legs.MethodsDemographics, surgical treatment and outcomes in 88 patients with lower leg arterial injuries treated by external fixation at two trauma centers from 2009 to 2018 were reviewed. The primary outcome was the rate of successful lower leg salvage, while secondary outcomes were complications and functional recovery.Results80 patients (90 legs) maintained a successful lower leg salvage. The patients were followed up for an average of 15.5±5.5 months. 6 patients (8 pins) experienced pin-tract infection, pins loosening happened in 2 patients (4 pins), 7 patients (7 legs) developed wound superficial infection, 3 patients (3 legs) with a deep infection developed osteomyelitis, 16 patients (17 legs) suffered the bone nonunion or bone defect. The average healing time of fracture was 5.6±4.3months. The maintain of external fixation average time was 5.8±3.6 months.ConclusionWith correctly judging the condition of limb ischemia, mastering reasonably the operation indications, and preventing complications, good clinical effects can be achieved when external fixation is used.Level of evidenceRetrospective cohort, level IV.

Background Recent studies regarding the effects of erythropoietin (EPO) for treating traumatic brain injury (TBI) have been inconsistent. This study conducts a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the safety and efficacy of EPO for TBI patients at various follow-up time points. Methods A literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library for RCTs studying EPO in TBI patients published through March 2019. Non-English manuscripts and non-human studies were excluded. The assessed outcomes include mortality, neurological recovery and associated adverse effects. Dichotomous variables are presented as risk ratios (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results A total of seven RCTs involving 1197 TBI patients were included in this study. Compared to the placebo arm, treatment with EPO did not improve acute hospital mortality or short-term mortality. However, there was a significant improvement in mid-term (6 months) follow-up survival rates. EPO administration was not associated with neurological function improvement. Regarding adverse effects, EPO treatment did not increase the incidence of thromboembolic events or other associated adverse events.Conclusions This meta-analysis indicates a slight mortality benefit for TBI patients treated with EPO at mid-term follow-up. EPO does not improve in-hospital mortality, nor does it increase adverse events including thrombotic, cardiovascular and other associated complications. Our analysis did not demonstrate a significant beneficial effect of EPO intervention on the recovery of neurological function. Future RCTs are required to further characterize the use of EPO in TBI.

Background Recent studies regarding the effects of erythropoietin (EPO) for treating traumatic brain injury (TBI) have been inconsistent. This study conducts a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the safety and efficacy of EPO for TBI patients at various follow-up time points. Methods A literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library for RCTs studying EPO in TBI patients published through March 2019. Non-English manuscripts and non-human studies were excluded. The assessed outcomes include mortality, neurological recovery and associated adverse effects. Dichotomous variables are presented as risk ratios (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results A total of seven RCTs involving 1197 TBI patients (611 treated with EPO, 586 treated with placebo) were included in this study. Compared to the placebo arm, treatment with EPO did not improve acute hospital mortality or short-term mortality. However, there was a significant improvement in mid-term (6 months) follow-up survival rates. EPO administration was not associated with neurological function improvement. Regarding adverse effects, EPO treatment did not increase the incidence of thromboembolic events or other associated adverse events. Conclusions This meta-analysis indicates a slight mortality benefit for TBI patients treated with EPO at mid-term follow-up. EPO does not improve in-hospital mortality, nor does it increase adverse events including thrombotic, cardiovascular and other associated complications. Our analysis did not demonstrate a significant beneficial effect of EPO intervention on the recovery of neurological function. Future RCTs are required to further characterize the use of EPO in TBI.

Background Percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) is a procedure performed by a spine surgeon who undergoes either orthopedic or neurosurgical training. The relationship between short-term adverse outcomes and spine specialty is presently unknown. To compare short-term adverse outcomes of single-level PKP when performed by neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons in order to develop more concretely preventive strategies for patients under consideration for single-level PKP. Methods We evaluated patients who underwent single-level PKP from 2012 to 2014 through the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). We used univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression to assess the association between spine surgeon specialty and short-term adverse events, including postoperative complication and unplanned readmission, and to identify different independent risk predictors between two specialties. Results Of 2248 patients who underwent single-level PKP procedure, 1229 patients (54.7%) had their operations completed by a neurosurgeon. There were no significant differences in the development of the majority of postoperative complications and the occurrence of unplanned readmission between the neurosurgical cohort (NC) and the orthopedic cohort (OC). A difference in the postoperative blood transfusion rate (0.7% NS vs. 1.7% OC, P = 0.039) was noted and may due to the differences in comorbidities between patients. Multivariate regression analysis revealed different independent predictors of postoperative adverse events for the two spine specialties. Conclusions By comparing a large range of demographic feature, preoperative comorbidities, and intraoperative factors, we find that short-term adverse events in single-level PKP patients does not affect by spine surgeon specialty, except that the OC had higher postoperative blood transfusion rate. In addition, the different perioperative predictors of postoperative complications and unplanned readmissions were identified between the two specialties. These findings can lead to better evidence-based patient counseling and provide valuable information for medical evaluation and potentially devise methods to reduce patients’ risk.