RESUMO
Background: MLC901 is a phytopharmaceutical comprising significant compounds that can induce microenvironments conducive to the proliferation and specialization of neural cell progenitors. This study investigates the impact of administering MLC901, reducing the expression of NG2 and caspase-3 and increasing IL-10 levels, as well as histopathological and motor function, after severe spinal cord injury (SCI) in the chronic phase. Methods: The study employed a randomized post-test-only control group design conducted between February and April 2023 at the Integrated Biomedical Laboratory. The participants in this study were categorized into three distinct groups: normal control, negative control, and therapy. A cohort of 18 rats was utilized for the study, with each group assigned a random allocation of six rats as subjects. Results: The findings demonstrated a statistically significant disparity in the average NG2 expression (-52.00 ± 20.03; p ≤ 0.05), as well as Caspase-3 expression (-94.89 ± 8.57; p ≤ 0.05), which exhibited a lower magnitude. The levels of IL-10 (8.96 ± 3.98; p ≤ 0.05) were observed to be higher, along with an elevation in BBB score (7.67 ± 0.89; p ≤ 0.05), which was more pronounced in the treatment group compared to the negative control group. The cut-off point for cavitation diameter is determined to be 114.915 µm, exhibiting a sensitivity and specificity of 100%. The area under curve (AUC) value is 1.0. The administration of MLC901 demonstrated a strong positive correlation with the increase in IL-10 levels (B 8.968; p ≤ 0.05), as well as a substantial negative correlation with the decrease in Caspase-3 expression (B -52.000; p ≤ 0.05) and NG2 expression (B -94.892; p ≤ 0.05). The administration of MLC901 via the upregulation of NG2 and Caspase-3 significantly increased the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan (BBB) scores. Conclusions: MLC901 positively affects motor and histopathological outcomes in the chronic phase of severe SCI in the Wistar rat model. These benefits are believed to be achieved by suppressing gliosis, neuroapoptosis, and neuroinflammation processes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: We aimed to synthesize the latest evidence on the efficacy and safety of decompression alone compared to decompression with fusion in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. We also aimed to evaluate factors affecting the efficacy and complications. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Europe PMC, Cochrane Central Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The main outcome was improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcome was back pain and leg pain improvement, complications, reoperation rate, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. RESULTS: There were 3993 patients from 13 studies. Decompression with fusion was associated with greater reduction in ODI (mean difference 4.04 [95% CI 0.95, 7.13], P = 0.01) compared to decompression alone. Greater reduction in back (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.27 [95% CI 0.00, 0.53], P = 0.05) and leg pain (SMD 0.13 [95% CI 0.06, 0.21], P < 0.001) was observed in the decompression with fusion group. Complications were similar in the 2 groups (OR 0.60 [95% CI 0.34, 1.04], P = 0.07). The reoperation rate was similar in both groups (P = 0.54). Decompression alone resulted in shorter duration of surgery (mean difference -85.18 minutes [95% CI -122.79, -47.57], P < 0.001), less blood loss (mean difference -262.65 mL [95% CI -313.45, -211.85], P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (mean difference -2.64 days [95% CI -3.58, -1.70], P < 0.001). Empirical Bayes random-effects meta-regression showed that the rate of complication was influenced by age (coefficient 0.172, P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Decompression with fusion had greater efficacy than decompression alone but was associated with more blood loss, lengthier surgery, and hospitalization. In terms of complications, decompression alone may be beneficial in younger patients. (PROSPERO CRD42020211904) LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2A.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to compare the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) instrumented fusion ± decompression versus conventional open surgery (COS) instrumented fusion ± decompression for the treatment of spinal metastases. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search through PubMed, Scopus, Europe PMC (PubMed Central), and Cochrane Central Database using the keywords "minimal invasive surgery" OR "minimally invasive surgery" OR "mini-open" AND "conventional open surgery" OR "traditional open surgery" OR "open surgery" AND "spinal metastasis". The outcomes of interest were complications, neurologic improvement, length of stay, intraoperative blood loss, transfusion rate, and operative duration. RESULTS: There were a total of 8 studies comprising 486 patients. Complications were less frequent in MIS compared with COS (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.84; P = 0.01; I2 = 0%). Major complications related to surgery were less in the MIS group (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.84; P = 0.01; I2 = 0%). The rate of neurologic improvement was similar in both groups (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.64-1.59; P = 0.95; I2 = 0%). MIS was associated with less blood loss (mean difference, -690.00 mL; 95% CI, -888.31 to -491.69; P < 0.001; I2 = 56%), and lower transfusion rate compared with COS (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.66; P = 0.004; I2 = 50%). Length of surgery was similar in both groups (mean difference, -12.49 minutes; 95% CI, -45.93 to 20.95; P = 0.46; I2 = 86%). MIS resulted in shorter length of stay compared with COS (mean difference -3.58 days; 95% CI, -6.90 to -0.26; P = 0.03; I2 = 89%). CONCLUSIONS: MIS was associated with lower complications, blood loss, transfusion rate, and shorter length of stay with a similar rate of neurologic improvement and length of surgery compared with COS.
