Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Cureus ; 15(10): e46681, 2023 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37869054

RESUMEN

Robotic-assisted surgery is a computer-controlled technique that may improve the accuracy and outcomes of unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty (TKA), a partial knee replacement surgery. The purpose of a meta-analysis about robotic-assisted versus conventional surgery for unicompartmental TKA is to compare the effectiveness of these two methods based on the current evidence. Our meta-analysis can help inform clinical decisions and guidelines for surgeons and patients who are considering unicompartmental TKA as a treatment option. We searched four online databases for studies that compared the two methods until March 2023. We used RevMan software to combine the data from the studies. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome, which are statistical measures of the difference and the uncertainty between the two methods. We included 16 studies in our analysis. We found that robotic-assisted surgery had a better hip-knee-ankle angle, which is a measure of how well the knee is aligned, than conventional surgery (MD = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.16-1.56). We also found that robotic-assisted surgery had a better Oxford Knee score, which is a measure of how well the knee functions, than conventional surgery (MD = 3.03, 95% CI = 0.96-5.110). This study compared the results of conventional and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in 12 studies. We concluded that robotic-assisted surgery may have some benefits over conventional surgery in terms of alignment and function of the knee. However, we did not find any significant difference between the two methods in terms of other outcomes, such as pain, range of motion, health status, and joint awareness. Therefore, we suggest that more research is needed to confirm these results and evaluate the long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery.

2.
Can J Respir Ther ; 59: 154-166, 2023.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37781348

RESUMEN

Background: More than six million people died due to COVID-19, and 10-15% of infected individuals suffer from post-covid syndrome. Corticosteroids are widely used in the management of severe COVID-19 and post-acute COVID-19 symptoms. This study synthesizes current evidence of the effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on mortality, hospital length-of-stay (LOS), and improvement of smell scores in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus until Aug 2022. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of studies. We evaluated the effectiveness of ICS in COVID-19 patients through measures of mortality, LOS, alleviation of post-acute COVID-19 symptoms, time to sustained self-reported cure, and sense of smell (visual analog scale (VAS)). Results: Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. Our study showed a significant decrease in the LOS in ICS patients over placebo (MD = -1.52, 95% CI [-2.77 to -0.28], p-value = 0.02). Patients treated with intranasal corticosteroids (INC) showed a significant improvement in VAS smell scores from week three to week four (MD =1.52, 95% CI [0.27 to 2.78], p-value = 0.02), and alleviation of COVID-related symptoms after 14 days (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.09 to 1.26], p-value < 0.0001). No significant differences were detected in mortality (RR= 0.69, 95% CI [0.36 to 1.35], p-value = 0.28) and time to sustained self-reported cure (MD = -1.28, 95% CI [-6.77 to 4.20], p-value = 0.65). Conclusion: We concluded that the use of ICS decreased patient LOS and improved COVID-19-related symptoms. INC may have a role in improving the smell score. Therefore, using INC and ICS for two weeks or more may prove beneficial. Current data do not demonstrate an effect on mortality or time to sustained self-reported cure. However, the evidence is inconclusive, and more studies are needed for more precise data.

3.
Foot (Edinb) ; 55: 101980, 2023 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36863247

RESUMEN

Osteoarthritis is the most common joint disease-causing pain and disability, and its management keeps creating a debate. So, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of total ankle arthroplasty and ankle arthrodesis for ankle osteoarthritis. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science till August 2021. The outcomes were pooled as Mean difference (MD) or Risk Ratio (RR), and 95% confidence interval. We included 36 studies. The results showed a significantly lower risk of infections in total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) than ankle arthrodesis (AA) (RR= 0.63, 95% CI [0.57, 0.70], p < 0.00001), amputations (RR= 0.40, 95% CI [0.22, 0.72], p = 0.002), postoperative non-union (RR= 0.11, 95% CI [0.03, 0.34], p = 0.0002), and a significant increase of overall range of motion in TAA than AA. Our results preferred total ankle arthroplasty over ankle arthrodesis in terms of lowering the rates of infections, amputations, and postoperative non-union, with better change in the overall range of motion.


Asunto(s)
Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Tobillo , Osteoartritis , Humanos , Articulación del Tobillo/cirugía , Tobillo/cirugía , Resultado del Tratamiento , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Tobillo/efectos adversos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Tobillo/métodos , Osteoartritis/cirugía , Artrodesis/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...