ObjectiveThe most recent systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the analgesic efficacy and side effects of paravertebral and epidural blockade for thoracotomy was published in 2006. Nine well-designed randomized trials with controversial results have been published since then. The present report constitutes an updated meta-analysis of this issue.Summary of BackgroundThoracotomy is a major surgical procedure and is associated with severe postoperative pain. Epidural analgesia is the gold standard for post-thoracotomy pain management, but has its limitations and contraindications, and paravertebral blockade is increasingly popular. However, it has not been decided whether the analgesic effect of the two methods is comparable, or whether paravertebral blockade leads to a lower incidence of adverse side effects after thoracotomy.MethodsTwo reviewers independently searched the databases PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (last performed on 1 February, 2013) for reports of studies comparing post-thoracotomy epidural analgesia and paravertebral blockade. The same individuals independently extracted data from the appropriate studies.ResultEighteen trials involving 777 patients were included in the current analysis. There was no significant difference in pain scores between paravertebral blockade and epidural analgesia at 4–8, 24, 48 hours, and the rates of pulmonary complications and morphine usage during the first 24 hours were also similar. However, paravertebral blockade was better than epidural analgesia in reducing the incidence of urinary retention (p<0.0001), nausea and vomiting (p = 0.01), hypotension (p<0.00001), and rates of failed block were lower in the paravertebral blockade group (p = 0.01).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis showed that PVB can provide comparable pain relief to traditional EPI, and may have a better side-effect profile for pain relief after thoracic surgery. Further high-powered randomized trials are to need to determine whether PVB truly offers any advantages over EPI.

No abstract

Osteoporosis is a chronic, progressive disease in which early diagnosis is very important. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) have been reported as new predictors in inflammatory and immune diseases including osteoporosis. No studies have reported the relationship between monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR) and osteoporosis patients. To investigated the ability of MLR to predict osteoporosis. Three hundred sixteen osteoporosis patients and 111 healthy control subjects were enrolled. Patients’ laboratory and clinical characteristics were recorded. MLR, NLR, and PLR levels were calculated. The differences were compared and the diagnostic values of MLR were analyzed. There were 76 male and 105 female patients included, with a mean age of 56.57 ± 9.95 years. The levels of MLR, NLR, and PLR in osteoporosis patients were all higher than those in healthy control subjects. The area under the curve of MLR was higher than those of NLR and PLR. Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that T-score was affected by age and MLR. MLR was positively correlated with C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, red blood cell distribution width, age, sex, and inversely with hemoglobin. MLR and PLR levels were significantly higher in osteoporosis patients than in osteopenia patients ( P < .05). The present study shows that MLR had a higher diagnostic value for osteoporosis. MLR may be a reliable, inexpensive, and novel potential predictor of osteoporosis.