Enoxacin inhibits proliferation and invasion of human osteosarcoma cells and reduces bone tumour volume in a murine xenograft model.

Osteosarcoma is the most prevalent primary bone malignancy in children and adolescents. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with surgical resection, the current standard treatment of osteosarcoma, is associated with a 5-year survival rate of only ~70%. Therefore, it is necessary to identify new, more effective treatment strategies for patients with this lethal disease. Enoxacin is a highly effective broad-spectrum fluoroquinolone antibiotic with low toxicity. The drug inhibits the growth and metastasis of numerous tumour types, but its efficacy has not been studied in osteosarcoma. This study assessed the antitumour effects of enoxacin in osteosarcoma 143B cells and in a murine tumour xenograft model. Enoxacin inhibited the proliferation, invasion and migration of 143B cells, as well as inducing their apoptosis. These effects were thought to be mediated by downregulation of Bcl-xL, Bxl-2, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)2 and MMP9 expression. Enoxacin also significantly impaired the growth of bone tumours in nude mice without affecting their liver or kidney function, or blood cell count. Collectively, these results indicate that enoxacin is a promising new drug for osteosarcoma that warrants further evaluation in clinical studies.

Comparison between minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open reduction-internal fixation for proximal humeral fractures: a meta-analysis based on 1050 individuals.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and complications of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and open reduction-internal fixation (ORIF) in patients with proximal humeral fractures. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library to identify all relevant studies from inception to April 2019. Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manage 5.3 was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen studies involving 1050 patients (464 patients in the MIPO group and 586 patients in the ORIF group) were finally included. According to the meta-analysis, MIPO was superior to ORIF in operation time, blood loss, postoperative pain, fracture union time, and constant score. However, MIPO was associated with more exposure to radiation and axillary nerve injury. No significant differences were found in length of hospital stays and complication except for axillary nerve injury. CONCLUSION: The present evidence indicates that compared to ORIF, MIPO had advantages in functional outcomes, operation time, blood loss, postoperative pain, and fracture union time for the treatment of PHFs. However, the MIPO technique had a higher rate of axillary nerve injury and longer radiation time compared to ORIF.