To explore the efficacy of regular penis‐root masturbation (PRM) versus Kegel exercise (KE) in the treatment of primary premature ejaculation (PPE). This study was a prospective quasi‐randomised controlled trial. Thirty‐seven heterosexual males with PPE were selected according to the time sequence of outpatient consultations and the preliminary results of a pre‐experiment and were assigned to an PRM group and a KE group. Differences in intravaginal ejaculatory latency times (IELTs) and premature ejaculation diagnostic tool (PEDT) scores were compared between the two groups. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University. Among the 37 PPE patients, 18 performed PRM and 19 patients performed KE. The IELTs of patients who performed PRM and KE were significantly prolonged before treatment, and the difference after treatment was statistically significant (p < .05). Compared with the KE group, the IELT prolongation effect in the PRM group was more significant PRM (p < .05). The PEDT scores of patients after performing PRM and KE were significantly lower than those before performing these exercises (p < .05). Compared with the KE group, the PEDT scores of the PRM group exhibited a greater decrease (p < .05). Thus, both PRM and KE have therapeutic effects on PPE. Compared with KE, PRM is more effective in the treatment of PPE.

Background: Many selective cyclooxygenase (COX-2) inhibitors are currently used in clinical practice. COX-2 inhibitors have good anti-inflammatory, analgesic, antipyretic effects, and gastrointestinal safety. However, the analgesic effects and adverse reactions of COX-2 after total knee/hip arthroplasty (TKA/THA) are not fully known. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of selective COX-2 inhibitors in postoperative pain management in patients receiving TKA/THA. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved from medical literature databases. Risk ratios (RR) Std mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to analyze the primary and safety endpoints. Results: In total, 18 articles (23 trial comparisons) were retrieved comprising 3104 patients. Among them, 1910 patients (61.5%) were randomized to the experimental group whereas 1194 patients (38.5%) were randomized to the control group. The primary endpoints were the patients' VAS score at rest or on ambulation (within 3 days). We found that VAS score in patients that received selective COX-2 inhibitor was significantly lower compared to those of the control group. Conclusion: This meta-analysis shows that selective COX-2 inhibitor therapy is effective, safe, and reliable in relieving postoperative pain of THA/TKA.

Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is the third leading cause of acquired acute renal injury in hospitalized patients. Alprostadil plays a role in the maintenance and redistribution of intrarenal blood flow and the excretion of electrolytes and water. However, the effectiveness of alprostadil in preventing CIN remains controversial. Thirty-six articles with a total of 5495 patients were included in this study. Both groups (experimental group and control group) received standard hydration therapy. In the experimental group, patients received different doses of alprostadil. Serum creatinine (SCr), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), cystatin C, creatinine clearance rate (CCr), and β2-microglobulin (β2-MG) were measured at 24, 48, and 72 hours after contrast media injection. The incidence of CIN in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group (6.56% vs 16.74%). The level of SCr, cystatin C, BUN, and β2-MG in the experimental group was lower than those in the control group; CCr and eGFR in the experimental group were higher than those in the control group. This study demonstrated that alprostadil may reduce the incidence of CIN in patients undergoing coronary angiogram and/or percutaneous coronary intervention.

Aim This article evaluates the preventive effects of rivaroxaban versus aspirin on venous thromboembolism (VTE) through meta-analysis of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods RCTs were retrieved from medical literature databases. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare the primary and safety endpoints. Results In total, 9 trials (11 trial comparisons) were retrieved which contained 7,656 patients. Among these patients, 4,383 patients (57.2%) received rivaroxaban, whereas 3,273 patients (42.8%) received aspirin. Compared with aspirin, rivaroxaban significantly reduced VTE (1.3% vs. 3.5%) (RR: 0.36, 95% CI, 0.26–0.48, I 2 = 27.9%), but significantly increased nonmajor bleeding (11.5% vs. 7.5%) (RR: 1.28, 95% CI, 1.13–1.44, I 2 = 38.6%). There were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality (0.3% vs. 0.3%) (RR: 0.75, 95% CI, 0.35–1.61, I 2 = 32.0%) and major bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.4%) (RR: 0.81, 95% CI, 0.42–1.55, I 2 = 33.7%) between the two groups. Conclusion This meta-analysis indicated that rivaroxaban can significantly reduce the incidence of VTE when compared with aspirin. The preventive effect of rivaroxaban on VTE was more potent than that of aspirin. However, rivaroxaban had some negative side effects to patients such as nonmajor bleeding compared to aspirin.

No abstract