A network meta-analysis on the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture in treating patients with major depressive disorder.

Acupuncture is an important alternative therapy in treating major depressive disorder (MDD), but its efficacy and safety are still not well assessed. This study is the first network meta-analysis exploring the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture, common pharmacological treatments or other non-medication therapies for MDD. Eight databases including PubMed, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cochrane Library, Wan Fang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine disc, and Chongqing VIP Database were searched up to Jan 17, 2021. Articles were screened and selected by two reviewers independently. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. A total of 71 eligible studies were included. The network analysis results indicated that the combined interventions of electro-acupuncture (EA) with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and manual acupuncture (MA) with SSRIs were more effective in improving depression symptoms compared with acupuncture alone, pharmacological interventions alone, or other inactive groups. Among all the regimens, EA with SSRIs was found to have the highest effect in improving depression symptoms of MDD. In addition, there were slight differences in the estimations of the various treatment durations. The combination of acupuncture and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) was found to be more effective than SNRIs alone. In conclusion, acupuncture and its combinations could be safe and effective interventions for MDD patients. EA with SSRIs seems to be the most effective intervention among the assessed interventions. Well-designed and large-scale studies with long-term follow-up should be conducted in the future.

The efficacy and complications of minimally invasive vs. the traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis / 中华骨科杂志

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar-interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods Total 142 patients with single level spondylolis-thesis who treated by TLIF from 2010.01 to 2015.06 were included in this study, with 68 cases in minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF) group and 74 cases in traditional open TLIF group. The general information (age, gender, isthmic or degenerative type, per-centage of slip degree, levels), operative time, blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of low-back pain and leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were recorded and collected. The posterior height of the interverte-bralpace and segmental lordosis, reduction of spondylolisthesis and cross-sectional area of spinal canal were measured. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in age, gender ratio, percentage of slip degree, and sur-gicallevels distribution. Total of 66 cases in MIS-TLIF group and 71 cases in Open TLIF group finished 2 years follow up, and 25 cases in MIS-TLIF group and 31 cases in Open TLIF group finished 5 years follow up. The blood loss of the MIS-TLIF group was 164.7±51.7 ml, significantly lower than the open TLIF group of 239±69.3 ml(P<0.001). The length of postoperative hospital stay was 5.9 ± 1.5 days in MIS-TLIF group, significantly shorter than the open TLIF group of 7.3 ± 3.1 days(P<0.001). The operative time of MIS-TLIF and Open TLIF was 146.3±21.9 mins, 152.0±20.4 mins, respectively, and no significant differ-ence was found between them. The VAS ofback pain, leg pain, ODI in MIS-TLIF group was 1.76±1.16, 1.91±1.36 and 23.5± 7.3 at 2 years follow up, and in Open TLIF was 1.73±1.10, 1.83±1.36 and 23.8±6.7, respectively, all of them were significant-ly different to pre-operation, however, no significant difference was found between two groups. The VAS of back pain, leg pain, ODI in MIS-TLIF group was 1.73±1.21, 1.93±1.48, and 25.4±6.8 at 5years follow up, and in Open TLIF was 1.85±1.02, 1.85± 1.33 and 26.1 ± 6.5, respectively, no significant difference between twogroups. The posterior height of the intervertebral space and segmental lordosis of MIS-TLIF was 9.52±1.67 mm and 12.11°±3.44° at 2 years follow up, while the open TLIF was 9.88± 1.54 mm and 12.98 ± 3.83° , all of them were significantly different to pre-operation,however, no significant difference between two groups. The posterior height of the intervertebral space and segmental lordosis of MIS-TLIF was 9.37 ± 1.46 mm and 11.55° ± 2.77° , while the open TLIF was 9.66 ± 1.68 mm and 12.59° ± 4.23° , no significant difference between two groups. The percentage of slip degree was reduced to 5.2％±4.6％ in MIS-TLIF and 5.6％±4.3％ in open TLIF, the cross-sectional area of spinal canal was enlarged to 139.7±19.5 mm2 and 141.7±20.7 mm2, no significant difference between two groups either. Con-clusion MIS-TLIF has less blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay than open TLIF, and similar clinical pain and function-al outcomes. MIS-TLIF is suggested to be a safe and effective choice in the treatment of lower grade lumbar spondylolisthesis (Grade II or less).