Xun WangDepartment of Orthopedics, Center for Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
Fabo FengDepartment of Orthopedics, Center for Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a classic surgical procedure for posterior lumbar fusion. This study aims to analyze the TLIF field by bibliometric method and comprehensively summarize the research status and trends.
All TLIF-related articles were retrieved from the Web of Science. The data were analyzed using R software and SPSS to calculate corresponding indicators. Visualizations were drawn using VOSviewer and Scimago Graphica, including country, institution, journal, author, and keywords.
A total of 919 articles were included. The annual publication volume of TLIF-related articles presented an exponential growth. North America, Europe, and Asia were the main sources of articles, with the USA and China being the main contributors and the USA being the global research center for TLIF. The level of the national economy was an important factor affecting TLIF-related research. The highest number of contributions in this field was made by Kern Singh among authors and by Rush University among institutions. The European Spine Journal was the most influential journal. The research focus has gradually shifted from perfecting the TLIF technique toward emphasizing the patient level. The improvement of minimally invasive techniques and how to improve clinical outcomes as well as accelerate postoperative rehabilitation of patients may be the hot spot of future research.
With the advancement of medical technology and the popularization of minimally invasive concepts in recent years, TLIF and its derivative technologies have attracted increasing attention. Patient-centered minimally invasive surgery is a hot research topic in the field of TLIF currently and will continue to be so into the future
This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), focusing on its impact on intraoperative blood loss and related outcomes.
The review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all literature related with TXA and TLIF. Finally, five trials ultimately meeting the inclusion criteria. Continuous variables were analyzed using mean difference and categorical variables were analyzed using Peto odds ratio, via random effects models.
The meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss associated with TXA use during TLIF, as confirmed by the RCTs. However, the impact of TXA on other outcomes, such as postoperative drainage volume, total blood loss, and length of hospital stay, remains inconclusive due to limited data. No severe complications related to TXA use were reported, providing preliminary evidence of its safety in TLIF.
TXA appears to effectively reduce intraoperative blood loss in TLIF, based on the available RCT evidence. However, further research is needed to provide a comprehensive assessment of TXA’s overall impact on various outcomes in this context. This meta-analysis underscores the importance of ongoing investigation to establish the full potential and safety profile of TXA in TLIF procedures.
To determine whether using robots in spine surgery results in more clinical advantages and fewer adverse consequences.
Between October 1990 and October 2022, a computer-based search was conducted through the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine, VIP databases, and WAN FANG. The study only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted surgery with those of conventional spine surgery. The review was conducted following PRISMA 2020, and AMSTAR-2 was used to evaluate the methodological quality. R version 4.2.1 was used in the meta-analysis. The Cochrane Collaboration Tool was used for evaluating the risk of bias.
This study analyzed 954 participants from 20 RCTs involving cervical spondylosis, lumbar degenerative disease, scoliosis, etc. The robot-assisted group outperformed the freehand group in terms of intraoperative blood loss, number of screws in grade A position, grade A + B position, radiation dose, and hospital stay. Operation duration, visual analog scale scores of low back pain, Oswestry disability index, and radiation exposure time did not significantly differ between the two groups.
Although robotic spine surgery is more accurate in pedicle screw placement than conventional methods, the robot group did not demonstrate an advantage in terms of clinical efficacy. Studies of complications and cost-effectiveness are still very rare.
The objective of this systematic review was to assess a possible relationship between stomatognathic alterations and idiopathic scoliosis (IS).
This study is a systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies.
The protocol of this systematic review with meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022370593). A bibliographic search was carried out in the Pubmed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL databases using the MeSH terms ‘Scoliosis’ and ‘Stomatognathic Disease’. The odds ratio (OR) of prevalence and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used to synthesize the results.
Of 1592 studies located, 14 studies were selected with 3018 subjects (age: 13.9 years). IS was related to Angle’s class II (OR = 2.052, 95% CI = 1.236–3.406) and crossbite (OR = 2.234, 95% CI = 1.639–3.045). Patients with malocclusion showed a higher prevalence of IS than controls (OR = 4.633, 95% CI = 1.467–14.628), and subjects with IS showed high overjet (SMD = 0.405, 95% CI = 0.149–0.661) and greater dysfunction due to temporomandibular disorders (SMD = 1.153, 95% CI = 0.780–1.527).
Compared with healthy controls, subjects with IS have twice the risk of suffering from occlusion disorders, present greater temporomandibular dysfunction and have a greater overjet in the incisors. Moreover, subjects with malocclusion have an IS prevalence up to four times higher. The systematic orofacial examination of patients with IS should be recommended.
Shu-Hao DuDepartment of Sport Rehabilitation, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shanghai University of Medicine and Health Sciences Affiliated Zhoupu Hospital, Shanghai, China
Xue-Qiang WangDepartment of Sport Rehabilitation, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shanghai University of Medicine and Health Sciences Affiliated Zhoupu Hospital, Shanghai, China
Nikolaos K KanakarisDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, United Kingdom Major Trauma Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, University of Leeds, United Kingdom
Segmental femoral fractures represent a rare but complex clinical challenge. They mostly result from high-energy mechanisms, dictate a careful initial assessment and are managed with various techniques. These often include an initial phase of damage control orthopaedics while the initial manoeuvres of patient and soft tissue resuscitation are employed.
Definitive fixation consists of either single-implant (reconstruction femoral nails) or dual-implant constructs. There is no consensus in favour of one of these two strategies.
At present, there is no high-quality comparative evidence between the various methods of treatment. The development of advanced design nailing and plating systems has offered fixation constructs with improved characteristics.
A comprehensive review of the existing evidence with a step-by-step description of these different definitive fixation strategies based on three case examples was conducted. Furthermore, the rationale for using single vs dual-implant strategy in its case is presented with supportive references.
The prevention of complications relies mainly on the strict adherence to basic principles of fracture fixation with an emphasis on careful preoperative planning, the quality of the reduction, and the application of soft tissue-friendly surgical methods.
Lumbar position sense can be assessed by measurement instruments including the goniometer, isokinetic dynamometry, and electronic motion monitoring equipment, which have demonstrated relatively high reliability.
This literature provides a comprehensive overview of influencing factors of lumbar position sense measurement, including repositioning method, fatigue degree, and posture during the reposition. It highlights the significant role of muscle proprioception, which contributes to greater accuracy in active reposition compared to passive reposition.
The differences in lumbar position sense with different measurement positions may be explained by the presence of mechanoreceptors in the load-bearing structures of the lumbar spine, especially in the facet joint capsules. These mechanoreceptors play a crucial role in providing sensory feedback and proprioceptive information pertaining to the position and movement of the lumbar spine.
Individuals with low back pain (LBP) demonstrate alterations in lumbar position sense compared to those without LBP. The auto motor sensory feedback transmission mechanism of patients with non-specific LBP was more unstable than that of healthy people. These findings suggest that lumbar position sense may play a potential role in the development and perpetuation of LBP.
At present, the commonly used clinical assessment methods for determining position sense include both active and passive repositioning. However, neither method exhibits high sensitivity and specificity, leading to the poor comparability of relevant studies and posing challenges for clinical application.
The total number of spine surgeries is increasing, with a variable percentage of patients remaining symptomatic and functionally impaired after surgery. Rehabilitation has been widely recommended, although its effects remain unclear due to lack of research on this matter. The aim of this comprehensive review is to resume the most recent evidence regarding postoperative rehabilitation after spine surgery and make recommendations.
The effectiveness of cervical spine surgery on the outcomes is moderate to good, so most physiatrists and surgeons agree that patients benefit from a structured postoperative rehabilitation protocol and despite best timing to start rehabilitation is still unknown, most programs start 4–6 weeks after surgery.
Lumbar disc surgery has shown success rates between 78% and 95% after 2 years of follow-up. Postoperative rehabilitation is widely recommended, although its absolute indication has not yet been proven. Patients should be educated to start their own postoperative rehabilitation immediately after surgery until they enroll on a rehabilitation program usually 4–6 weeks post-intervention.
The rate of lumbar interbody fusion surgery is increasing, particularly in patients over 60 years, although studies report that 25–45% of patients remain symptomatic. Despite no standardized rehabilitation program has been defined, patients benefit from a cognitive-behavioral physical therapy starting immediately after surgery with psychological intervention, patient education and gradual mobilization. Formal spine rehabilitation should begin at 2–3 months postoperatively.
Rehabilitation has benefits on the recovery of patients after spine surgery, but further investigation is needed to achieve a standardized rehabilitation approach.
Low back pain (LBP) is a common symptom that can occur in all ages. It is the first common cause of disability globally and is associated with over 60 million disability-adjusted life-years in a single year.
Motor control exercise (MCE) has obtained increasing attention in treating LBP. However, the findings from distinct meta-analyses differed and some even reached controversial conclusions. More importantly, how MCE improves LBP-related symptoms remains unclear.
The primary aim of this study is to describe the possible improvement mechanisms of MCE on LBP from brain, biochemistry, inflammatory, and neuromuscular aspects. The secondary aim is to further conclude its effectiveness and clinical application. Further understanding of mechanisms and effectiveness could be instructive for future LBP treatments and provide more information for clinicians when making prescriptions.
MCE is effective in alleviating pain and disability among patients with acute and chronic LBP. Notably, the evidence for acute LBP is relatively low-quality and limited.
MCE might be more effective for patients with specific LBP characteristics, especially those with pre-diagnosis of impaired transversus abdominis recruitment, intermediate pain intensity, and longer MCE training duration.
MCE could remap brain representation and reverse negative brain alternation, induce exercise-induced hypoalgesia, mediate anti-inflammatory response, retain normal activation, and improve morphological deficits.
To report accuracy, repeatability, and agreement of Cobb angle measurements on radiographs and/or stereo-radiographs (EOS) compared against one another or against other imaging modalities.
This review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search was conducted on 21 July 2021 using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane. Two researchers independently performed title/abstract/full-text screening and data extraction. Studies were eligible if they reported Cobb angles, and/or their repeatability and agreement, measured on radiographs and/or EOS compared against one another or against other imaging modalities.
Of the 2993 records identified, 845 were duplicates and 2212 were excluded during title/abstract/full-text screening. Two more relevant studies were identified from references of eligible studies, leaving 14 studies for inclusion. Two studies compared Cobb angles from EOS vs CT, while 12 compared radiographs vs other imaging modalities: EOS, CT, MRI, digital fluoroscopy, or dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Angles from standing radiographs tended to be higher than those from supine MRI and CT, and angles from standing EOS tended to be higher than those from supine or prone CT. Correlations across modalities were strong (R = 0.78–0.97). Inter-observer agreement was excellent for all studies (ICC = 0.77–1.00), except one (ICC = 0.13 radiographs and ICC = 0.68 for MRI).
Differences of up to 11º were found when comparing Cobb angles across combinations of imaging modalities and patient positions. It is not possible, however, to determine whether the differences observed are due to the change of modality, position, or both. Therefore, clinicians should be careful when utilizing the thresholds for standing radiographs across other modalities and positions for diagnosis and assessment of scoliosis.