RESUMEN
Aim: The authors aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to determine if acetylcholinesterase inhibitors may pose a direct threat, increasing the incidence of fractures in dementia patients. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched. Inclusion criteria were any original studies that demonstrated the link between acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and the incidence of fracture in patients with dementia. RevMan(5.4) was used. Results: Seven observational studies were included. The total number of patients included in the acetylcholinesterase inhibitors group is 274 332 and 290 347 in the control group. The pooled analysis showed that the risk of bone fracture was not statistically different between dementia patients who received acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and those who did not receive them (odds ratio=1.44, CI 0.95, 2.19, P=0.09). Subgroup analysis showed no statistically significant difference between dementia patients who took acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, and those who didn't take acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in those more than or equal to 80 years old and those less than 80 years old (P=0.44) and (P=0.34) respectively. However, our results showed a statistically significant association between dementia patients who received acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and decreased fracture risk in those receiving the treatment for more than or less than 2 years (risk ratio=0.48, CI= 0.45, 0.51, P<0.00001) and (risk ratio=0.84, CI 0.70, 0.99, P=0.04), respectively. Conclusion: Our study revealed no role for acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in increasing the risk of fracture compared with controls. Hence, based on our analysis, they might have a protective role against fracture when used for long periods considering their positive action on bone growth and development. Therefore, Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors could be considered a safe option for improving cognitive functions in elderly demented patients without carrying any additional risks.
RESUMEN
Purpose: Postoperative blood loss is a common complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The authors aimed to analyze the significance of open versus closed-box prostheses in reducing blood loss after TKA. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Observational studies and clinical trials comparing the effect of open-box versus closed-box prostheses on blood loss following TKA were included. The primary outcome was total blood loss following TKA. Secondary outcomes included average transfused units and total operation time. Continuous data were represented as mean difference (MD) and CI, while dichotomous data were presented as odds ratio (OR) and CI. RevMan software version 5.4 was used to conduct the analysis. Results: Four studies with a total number of 687 patients were included. The pooled analysis showed a statistically significant association between closed-box and decreased total blood loss following TKA compared with open-box (MD=173.19, 95% CI=88.77-257.61, P value <0.0001). Similar findings were reported in unilateral TKA (MD=190.63, 95% CI=70.91-310.35, P value=0.002), and bilateral TKA (MD=160.79, 95% CI=61.70-359.86, P value=0.001). There was no significant difference between open and closed-box regarding average transfused units (MD=0.02, 95% CI=-0.07-0.11, P value=0.68), blood transfusion rate (OR=1.38, 95% CI=0.85-2.26, P value=0.20), length of stay (MD=0.06, 95% CI=-0.27 to 0.38, P value=0.74), and total operation time (MD=1.08, 95% CI=-4.62 to 6.79, P value=0.71). Conclusion: Closed-box reduces the total blood loss following unilateral and bilateral TKA. More studies are warranted to explore the benefits of Closed-box in patients with high bleeding susceptibility.