Background Gut microbiota dysbiosis and sarcopenia commonly occur in the elderly. Although the concept of the gut–muscle axis has been raised, the casual relationship is still unclear. This systematic review analyses the current evidence of gut microbiota effects on muscle/sarcopenia. Methods A systematic review was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases using the keywords (microbiota* OR microbiome*) AND (sarcopen* OR muscle). Studies reporting the alterations of gut microbiota and muscle/physical performance were analysed. Results A total of 26 pre‐clinical and 10 clinical studies were included. For animal studies, three revealed age‐related changes and relationships between gut microbiota and muscle. Three studies focused on muscle characteristics of germ‐free mice. Seventy‐five per cent of eight faecal microbiota transplantation studies showed that the recipient mice successfully replicated the muscle phenotype of donors. There were positive effects on muscle from seven probiotics, two prebiotics, and short‐chain fatty acids (SCFAs). Ten studies investigated on other dietary supplements, antibiotics, exercise, and food withdrawal that affected both muscle and gut microbiota. Twelve studies explored the potential mechanisms of the gut–muscle axis. For clinical studies, 6 studies recruited 676 elderly people (72.8 ± 5.6 years, 57.8% female), while 4 studies focused on 244 young adults (29.7 ± 7.8 years, 55.4% female). The associations of gut microbiota and muscle had been shown in four observational studies. Probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, fermented milk, caloric restriction, and exercise in six studies displayed inconsistent effects on muscle mass, function, and gut microbiota. Conclusions Altering the gut microbiota through bacteria depletion, faecal transplantation, and various supplements was shown to directly affect muscle phenotypes. Probiotics, prebiotics, SCFAs, and bacterial products are potential novel therapies to enhance muscle mass and physical performance. Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains restored age‐related muscle loss. Potential mechanisms of microbiome modulating muscle mainly include protein, energy, lipid, and glucose metabolism, inflammation level, neuromuscular junction, and mitochondrial function. The role of the gut microbiota in the development of muscle loss during aging is a crucial area that requires further studies for translation to patients.

Aims The effect of the gut microbiota (GM) and its metabolite on bone health is termed the gut-bone axis. Multiple studies have elucidated the mechanisms but findings vary greatly. A systematic review was performed to analyze current animal models and explore the effect of GM on bone. Methods Literature search was performed on PubMed and Embase databases. Information on the types and strains of animals, induction of osteoporosis, intervention strategies, determination of GM, assessment on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone quality, and key findings were extracted. Results A total of 30 studies were included, of which six studies used rats and 24 studies used mice. Osteoporosis or bone loss was induced in 14 studies. Interventions included ten with probiotics, three with prebiotics, nine with antibiotics, two with short-chain fatty acid (SCFA), six with vitamins and proteins, two with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and one with neuropeptide Y1R antagonist. In general, probiotics, prebiotics, nutritional interventions, and TCM were found to reverse the GM dysbiosis and rescue bone loss. Conclusion Despite the positive therapeutic effect of probiotics, prebiotics, and nutritional or pharmaceutical interventions on osteoporosis, there is still a critical knowledge gap regarding the role of GM in rescuing bone loss and its related pathways. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(1):51–59.

No abstract

Aims The use of 3D printing has become increasingly popular and has been widely used in orthopaedic surgery. There has been a trend towards an increasing number of publications in this field, but existing literature incorporates limited high-quality studies, and there is a lack of reports on outcomes. The aim of this study was to perform a scoping review with Level I evidence on the application and effectiveness of 3D printing. Methods A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The keywords used for the search criteria were ((3d print*) OR (rapid prototyp*) OR (additive manufactur*)) AND (orthopaedic). The inclusion criteria were: 1) use of 3D printing in orthopaedics, 2) randomized controlled trials, and 3) studies with participants/patients. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane Collaboration Tool and PEDro Score. Pooled analysis was performed. Results Overall, 21 studies were included in our study with a pooled total of 932 participants. Pooled analysis showed that operating time (p < 0.001), blood loss (p < 0.001), fluoroscopy times (p < 0.001), bone union time (p < 0.001), pain (p = 0.040), accuracy (p < 0.001), and functional scores (p < 0.001) were significantly improved with 3D printing compared to the control group. There were no significant differences in complications. Conclusion 3D printing is a rapidly developing field in orthopaedics. Our findings show that 3D printing is advantageous in terms of operating time, blood loss, fluoroscopy times, bone union time, pain, accuracy, and function. The use of 3D printing did not increase the risk of complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(12):807–819.

No abstract