RESUMO
Background: Currently, whether bone cement can be applied in bipolar hemiarthroplasty to treat femoral neck fractures (FNFs) in elderly patients is controversial. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness and safety of cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty (CBH) versus uncemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty (UCBH) in the treatment of FNFs among elderly patients over 60 years old. Materials and methods: The Pubmed, Web of science, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases were searched comprehensively for relevant articles from their inception to May 2022. Studies about comparing outcomes between CBH and UCBH for FNFs in elderly patients aged more than 60 years were included. Outcomes including operation time, intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, wound infections, residual pain, revisions, re-operations, complications related to prosthesis, general complications, and mortality. The Review Manager 5.3 software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration Network was used to perform the meta-analysis of comparable data. Results: A total of 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 observational studies were included in this analysis, with 33,118 patients (33,127 hips). Results of the meta-analysis indicated that the operation time [WMD = 13.01 min, 95% CI (10.79, 15.23)], intra-operative blood loss [WMD = 80.57 ml, 95% CI (61.14, 99.99)], incidence of heterotrophic ossification [OR = 2.07, 95% CI (1,14, 3.78)], were increased in the CBH group but the incidence of intra-operative fractures [OR = 0.24, 95% CI (0.07, 0.86)], periprosthetic fractures [OR = 0.24, 95% CI (0.18, 0.31)], aseptic loosening of prosthesis [OR = 0.20, 95% CI (0.09, 0.44)], wound infections [OR = 0.80, 95% CI (0.68, 0.95)] and re-operation rates [OR = 0.61, 95% CI (0.54, 0.68)] were lower in the CBH group by comparison with the UCHB group. However, there were no significant differences in residual pain, length of hospital stay, prosthetic dislocation, prosthetic subsidence (> 5 mm), acetabulum erosion, revisions, pulmonary infections, pulmonary embolisms, urinary tract infections, deep venous thromboses, decubitus, cardiovascular accidents (arrhythmia/myocardial infarction), and respiratory failure between the two groups. In terms of mortality, perioperative mortality (within 72 h) [OR = 2.39, 95% CI (1.71, 3.32)] and 1-week mortality postoperatively [OR = 1.22, 95% CI (1.05, 1.41)] in CBH group were higher than those in UCBH group, but there were no significant differences in mortality at 1 month, 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively between CBH group and UCBH group. Conclusion: This meta-analysis found that elderly patients over 60 years old with FNFs who underwent CBH had longer operation time, higher incidence of heterotrophic ossification, intra-operative blood loss, and mortality within 72 h of operation and at 1-week postoperatively, but lower incidence of periprosthetic fractures, aseptic loosening of prosthesis, intra-operative fractures, wound infections and re-operations. Other outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021274253.
RESUMO
Background: Since the application of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) in 2016, the approach has been gradually applied to perioperative analgesia in various surgeries. In recent years, more and more studies have focused on the effect of ESPB in perioperative analgesia of lumbar spinal surgery, but its clinical effect remains controversial. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to explore the efficacy and safety of ESPB used for perioperative pain management in lumbar spinal surgery. Methods: The Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were comprehensively searched for relevant articles from inception to March 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ESPB with placebo or without ESPB in lumbar spinal surgery were included. The Review Manager 5.3 software was employed for this meta-analysis. Results: Nineteen RCTs with 1381 participants were included for final analysis. ESPB group exhibited lower intraoperative consumption of sufentanil and remifentanil, lower total opioid consumption within 24 h and 48 h after surgery, lower incidence of rescue analgesia, longer time to first rescue analgesic and lower number of PCA button presses compared to the control group (P<0.05). Moreover, the ESPB group had significantly lower pain scores at rest and on movement within 48 h after surgery compared with the control group (P<0.05). In terms of opioid-related adverse reactions, ESPB reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomitting, somnolence and itching in comparison to the control group (P<0.05). ESPB-related serious complications were not reported in included studies. Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrated that ESPB used in lumbar spinal surgery was effective in relieving postoperative pain, decreasing the perioperative consumption of opioids, as well as decreasing the incidence of postoperative opioid-related adverse reactions.
RESUMO
To provide applied anatomical evidence of the preoperative assessment of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), the anatomical parameters of the OLIF operative window were observed through computed tomography angiography (CTA). We selected imaging data from 60 adults (30 males, 30 females) who underwent abdominal CTA and T12-S1 vertebral computed tomography (CT) with three-dimensional reconstruction. The OLIF operative windows at the L1-2, L2-3, L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1 levels were as follows: the vascular window, bare window, psoas major window, ideal operative window, and actual operative window. Each level's actual operative window was statistically analyzed based on an actual operative window of <1 cm and ≥1 cm. The vascular window was largest at L4-5 (1.72 ± 0.58 cm). The bare window was largest at L5-S1 (1.59 ± 0.93 cm) and smallest at L3-4 (1.37 ± 0.51 cm). The psoas major window was largest at L3-4 (1.14 ± 0.35 cm) and smallest at L1-2 (0.41 ± 0.34 cm). The ideal operative window was largest at L4-5 (3.74 ± 0.36 cm) and smallest at L1-2 (3.23 ± 0.30 cm). The actual operative window was largest at L3-4, followed by L2-3, L4-5, L1-2, and L5-S1, which were 2.51 ± 0.56 cm, 2.28 ± 0.54 cm, 2.01 ± 0.74 cm, 1.80 ± 0.45 cm and 1.59 ± 0.93 cm, respectively (P = 0.000), and the percentages of the actual surgical window were 69%, 66%, 53%, 56% and 43%, respectively. The actual surgical window was <1 cm in 2 cases at L1-2 (3.3%), 4 cases at L4-5 (6.7%), and 17 cases at L5-S1 (28.3%) (11 males and 6 females). The regional anatomy of each level related to OLIF has its own peculiarities, and not all levels are suitable for OLIF. Before OLIF surgery, surgeons should analyze the imaging anatomy and select the appropriate surgical procedures.