Correction to: Is cell transplantation a reliable therapeutic strategy for spinal cord injury in clinical practice? A systematic review and meta-analysis from 22 clinical controlled trials.

Zhao-he and Sun-qingling are the co-first authors for this manuscript in the initial submission. Because of author's negligence and fault, this information was not shown clearly in the originally published article.

Is cell transplantation a reliable therapeutic strategy for spinal cord injury in clinical practice? A systematic review and meta-analysis from 22 clinical controlled trials.

PURPOSE: It is an open question whether cell transplantation can provide safety and effective outcome to spinal cord injury (SCI) patient which has remained controversial for almost 40 years. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cell transplantation in SCI patients. METHOD: Studies of the cell transplantation for SCI were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library and analyzed quantitative data by Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: Twenty-one clinical controlled studies with 973 patients were included. The pooled results suggested that cell transplantation significantly improved ASIA score, ASIA motor score, ASIA sensory score, Barthel Index score, residual urine volume, rehabilitative time of automatic micturition. Furthermore, subgroup analysis indicated that the stem cells exhibited more potent than the non-stem cells in spinal cord repair. Cell transplantation at more than 14 days after injury showed more significant improvements than that within 14 days from injury. The dosage of cell transplantation between 1-5 × 107 and 10-20 × 107 was the potent quantity for the patient with SCI. Intrathecal injection and intravenous + intrathecal injection showed more superior to the other method. The top 5 adverse events were febrile reaction (11.5%), neurologic pain (11.3%), headache (2.6%), neurologic deterioration (2.4%), and rigidity or spasticity (1.6%). CONCLUSION: Cell transplantation appears to be a safe therapeutic strategy possessing substantial beneficial effects in the patients with SCI in clinic. Moreover, treating SCI with stem cell, the dosage of cells between 1-5 × 107 and 10-20 × 107, in intermediate or chronic phase, minimally invasive techniques, may bring more advantage to SCI patient. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

A comparison study between hybrid surgery and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylosis.

AIMS: Whether to perform hybrid surgery (HS) in contrast to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when treating patients with multilevel cervical disc degeneration remains a controversial subject. To resolve this we have undertaken a meta-analysis comparing the outcomes from HS with ACDF in this condition. METHODS: Seven databases were searched for studies of HS and ACDF from inception of the study to 1 September 2019. Both random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to evaluate the overall effect of the C2-C7 range of motion (ROM), ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), heterotopic ossification (HO), complications, neck disability index (NDI) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Odom's criteria, blood loss, and operating and hospitalization time. To obtain more credible results contour-enhanced funnel plots, Egger's and Begg's tests, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In total, 17 studies involving 861 patients were included in the analysis. HS was found to be superior to ACDF in maintaining C2-C7 ROM and ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, but HS did not reduce the incidence of associated level ASD. Also, HS did not cause a higher rate of HO than ACDF. The frequency of complications was similar between the two techniques. HS failed to achieve more favourable outcomes than ACDF using the NDI, VAS, JOA, and Odom's scores. HS did not show any more advantages in operating or hospitalization time but did show reduction in blood loss. CONCLUSION: Although HS maintained cervical kinetics, it failed to reduce the incidence of ASD. This finding differs from previous reports. Moreover, patients did not show more benefits from HS with respect to symptom improvement, prevention of complications, and clinical outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):981-996.

[Application of perfusion bone cement screw in lumbar degenerative disease with osteoporosis].

OBJECTIVE: To observe the early clinical effect of perfusion bone cement screw for lumbar degenerative diseases with osteoporosis. METHODS: The clinical data of 28 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases combined with moderate to severe osteoporosis treated by posterior lateral graft fusion with perfusion of bone cement screws from June 2015 to June 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 9 males and 19 females, aged from 55 to 86 years old with an average of 76 years. Anteroposterior, oblique, and dynamic radiography were performed before operation, and the diagnosis was confirmed by CT, MRI and dual energy X-ray absorptionmetry(DXA). All the patients had moderate to severe lumbar spinal stenosis, including 16 cases with degenerative scoliosis, 12 cases with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, and 16 cases with lumbar disc herniation. According to Jikei grade of osteoporosis, 9 cases were grade II and 19 cases were grade III. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score were used to assess the improvement of lumbar leg pain, and neurological function. Imaging data were used to observe the circumstance of pedicle loosening, prolapse, breakage and bone cement leakage, and comprehensively evaluate the fusion. RESULTS: The hospital stay was from 10 to 14 days with an average of 12 days; the operative time was 100 to 150 min with an average of 120 min;the blood loss was 200 to 600 ml with an average of 350 ml (for operations more than 3 vertebral segments, blood filtration recovery was intraoperatively used);the postoperative drainage volume was 150 to 600 ml with an average of 300 ml, no allogeneic blood was used in all the patients. Bone cement of 2 to 3 ml were injected into each vertebral body, and bone cement leakage occurred in 2 cases during injection, both of which were paravertebral vessel leakage, and there was no evidence of intravertebral leakage. The injection of bone cement was terminated in a timely manner without serious complications such as nerve injury, bone cement toxicity, and vascular embolization and pulmonary embolism. According to the fusion criteria by X-ray, 18 cases achieved strong bone fusion, and 10 cases were inaccurate fusion, but no pseudarthrosis occurred in the fusion segment. No screw loosening, prolapse or fracture were found, and postoperative VAS, JOA scores were significantly improved. CONCLUSIONS: Perfusion bone cement screw technique can obtain satisfactory effect in treating lumbar degenerative diseases with osteoporosis.