Background:Short-stem (SS) prostheses require less resection of the femoral neck, produce a more physiological load pattern in the proximal femur, reduce stress shielding, and aid bone conservation and are, therefore, beneficial for young patients. Conventional cementless implants in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have shown excellent clinical results; however, it is unclear whether SS prostheses can obtain the same clinical and radiological outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate whether SS prostheses are superior to conventional implants after primary THA.Methods:We reviewed the literature published up to June 2016 from PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to find relevant RCTs comparing SSs and conventional stems in primary THA. Quality assessment was performed by 2 independent reviewers. The RevMan 5.3 software program of the Cochrane Collaboration was used to analyze the data. Random- or fixed-effect models were used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each comparison.Results:Six RCTs involving 552 patients with 572 hips were identified. Strong evidence indicated that SS prostheses were more effective for reducing thigh pain than conventional implants (I 2 = 46%, P = 0.002; risk ratio [RR], 95% CI 0.15, 0.04–0.49). However, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in Harris Hip Scores (I 2 = 0%, P = 0.84; SMD, 95% CI 0.02, −0.15–0.18), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Scores (I 2 = 0%, P = 0.35; SMD, 95% CI 0.09, −0.10–0.27), femoral offset of stem (I 2 = 0%, P = 0.57; SMD, 95% CI 0.06, −0.16–0.29), and leg-length discrepancy (I 2 = 79%, P = 0.88; SMD, 95% CI 0.04, −0.44–0.51).Conclusion:SS prostheses achieve the same clinical and radiological outcomes as conventional implants, and were superior in terms of reducing thigh pain. But whether the postoperative thigh pain applied in 2nd-generation cementless prosthesis still needs further large-scale multicenter studies with longer follow-up to confirm.

No abstract

Background Surgical treatment is the first choice for intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly as it allows early rehabilitation and functional recovery. Recently, more and more surgeons prefer arthroplasty instead of internal fixation in the treatment of senile intertrochanteric fractures. However, there is conflicting evidence as to which is the best surgical treatment for them. In this article, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical effectiveness of internal fixation (IF) and arthroplasty (AR) for intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly. Methods The online databases of PubMed, Cochrane Database, and Web of Science were searched to include studies conducted from 01/01/2000 to 11/30/2018 in English using keywords to identify articles relevant to this study. All studies had to have evaluated the treatment of patients with intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly(≥ 60 years of age). The quality of the trials was assessed and meta-analyses were conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 5.3 version. Results A total of 14 studies involving a total of 1588 patients were suitable for inclusion in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the IF and AR groups for postoperative complications-related general condition (OR = 1.24; 95% CI = 0.90, 1.70; P = 0.19), hospital stay (SMD = 0.16; 95% CI= -0.5, 0.82; P = 0.64), and Harris hip score (SMD= -0.12; 95% CI= -0.79, 0.54; P = 0.71). AR group had a significantly lower rate of complications-related operation (OR = 2.21; 95% CI = 1.41, 3.45; P = 0.0005) and reoperation (OR = 2.74; 95% CI = 1.57, 4.76; P = 0.0004). However, compared with AR group, IF group could reduce the blood loss (OR=-4.08; 95% CI=-4.58, -3.59; P < 0.00001), transfusion requirement (SMD= -0.67; 95% CI= -1.08, -0.26; P = 0.001), operation time (SMD= -0.80; 95% CI= -1.47, -0.12; P < 0.00001), and have a lower rate of mortality within 1-year (OR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.52, 0.86; P = 0.002). Conclusion AR is associated with less rates of complications-related operation and reoperation but has an increased risk of blood loss, transfusion, operation time and mortality within 1-year. Our findings demonstrated that AR does not have significant advantages over IF for intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly.

Osteoporosis is an age-related disorder with enormous public health burden with an urgent need for better diagnosis and treatment. Herein, we have investigated the potential role of jatrorrhizine, a plant bioactive, in osteoporosis since it is known to exhibit a wide array of biologic and pharmacologic activities. Using MC3T3-E1 cells, a clonal murine cell line ofimmature osteoblasts derived from mice, we examined the effect of jatrorrhizine on various parameters of cell function. While jatrorrhizine exhibited no effect on MC3T3-E1 cell viability, it caused reversal of dexamethasone-induced suppression of calcium deposition and alkaline phosphatase activity, elevation of osteogenic differentiation related proteins, and decrease in the level of histone deacetylase 4. These observations led us to conclude that jatrorrhizine ameliorates osteogenic differentiation in dexamethasone treated MC3T3-E1 cells via histone deacetylase 4 suggesting its potential application in the treatment of osteoporosis.

Background: Surgical treatment is the first choice for intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly as it allows early rehabilitation and functional recovery. Recently, more and more surgeons prefer arthroplasty instead of internal fixation in the treatment of senile intertrochanteric fractures. However, there is conflicting evidence as to which is the best surgical treatment for them. In this article, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical effectiveness of internal fixation (IF) and arthroplasty (AR) for intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly. Methods: The online databases of PubMed, Cochrane Database, and Web of Science were searched to include studies conducted from 01/01/2000 to 11/30/2018 in English using keywords to identify articles relevant to this study. All studies had to have evaluated the treatment of patients with intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly(≥60 years of age). The quality of the trials was assessed and meta-analyses were conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 5.3 version. Results: A total of 14 studies involving a total of 1588 patients were suitable for inclusion in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the IF and AR groups for postoperative complications-related general condition (OR=1.24; 95% CI= 0.90, 1.70; P=0.19), hospital stay (SMD=0.16; 95% CI= -0.5, 0.82; P =0.64), and Harris hip score (SMD= -0.12; 95% CI= -0.79, 0.54; P =0.71). AR group had a significantly lower rate of complications-related operation (OR= 2.21; 95% CI= 1.41, 3.45; P=0.0005) and reoperation (OR=2.74; 95% CI= 1.57, 4.76; P=0.0004). However, compared with AR group, IF group could reduce the blood loss (OR=-4.08; 95% CI=-4.58, -3.59; P<0.00001), transfusion requirement (SMD= -0.67; 95% CI= -1.08, -0.26; P=0.001), operation time (SMD= -0.80; 95% CI= -1.47, -0.12; P < 0.00001), and have a lower rate of mortality within 1-year (OR= 0.67; 95% CI= 0.52, 0.86; P=0.002).Conclusion: AR is associated with less rates of complications-related operation and reoperation but has an increased risk of blood loss, transfusion, operation time and mortality within 1-year. Our findings demonstrated that AR does not have significant advantages over IF for intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly.