Background. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate current studies available reporting the antibiotic spacer combined with Ilizarov methods in the treatment of infected nonunion of tibia and to perform meta-analysis of bone results and infection recurrence to assess the efficacy of an antibiotic spacer combined with Ilizarov methods. Methods. The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and CBM (Chinese Biological Medicine) databases were searched for articles published between January 2000 and July 2020. Assessment of study quality was performed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Effect size and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the main outcome. Heterogeneity was assessed. Fixed-effect modeling and Stata version 15.1 were used to analyze the data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted with the evidence of heterogeneity. Results. 11 studies involving 210 patients with infected nonunion of tibia were finally included in our meta-analysis. Bone results and infection recurrence were analyzed based on the single-arm meta-analysis. The average of external fixation index (EFI) was 46.88 days/cm in all studies included. The excellent rate in bone results and the rate of infection recurrence was 65% (95% CI: [0.22, 0.97], I 2 = 0.0 % , P = 0.932 ) and 6.99% (95% CI: [0.052, 0.325], I 2 = 0.0 % , P = 1.000 ) in patients with infected nonunion of tibia treated with an antibiotic spacer combined with Ilizarov methods. Conclusions. Our meta-analysis revealed that the patients with infected nonunion of tibia treated with an antibiotic spacer combined with Ilizarov methods had a high rate of excellent bone results and a low rate of infection recurrence. Therefore, combining the antibiotic spacer with Ilizarov methods may be an applicable choice for repairing and reconstructing infected nonunion of tibia.
Objective: Corticosteroid injection is a common treatment for primary frozen shoulder, but controversy remains regarding whether different injection approaches to the glenohumeral joint have similar clinical benefits.Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial.Patients: A total of 60 patients with primary frozen shoulder were divided randomly into either anterior or posterior approach groups.Methods: Both groups received a 5-mL drug injection, including 1 mL 40 mg/mL triamcinolone acetonide and 4 mL 2% lidocaine. Follow-up time-points were 4, 8 and 12 weeks post-injection. Outcome measures included visual analogue scale score, Constant-Murley score, and passive range of motion of the shoulder joint.Results: All outcome measures improved over the follow-up period compared with those of previous follow-up time-points within the groups. The primary finding was that the visual analogue scale score in the anterior group was better than that in the posterior group at each follow-up time-point (all p < 0.05). In addition, improvement in function score and external rotation was faster and significant in the anterior group in the early stages (p = 0.02).Conclusion: The anterior approach achieves more satisfactory results in pain control and offers better recovery of functional activity than posterior approach in the early period for primary frozen shoulder. LAY ABSTRACTAlthough many studies have been published in recent years on corticosteroid injection in the glenohumeral joint for primary frozen shoulder, the injection approaches described by current reports are not consistent and not described in detail, which is not conducive for their use to be repeated by clinicians. Meanwhile, controversy remains regarding whether different approaches have similar clinical outcomes. This study used a modified anterior approach based on anatomical landmarks, taking the acromioclavicular joint as a reference, to accurately and quickly complete the injection process. The study showed that the anterior approach could reduce pain severity more significantly than the regular posterior approach, and this advantage can be maintained for 3 months. Meanwhile, the function score of the anterior approach could recover to the maximum more quickly. In addition, recovery of external rotation in the anterior approach was faster and greater that for the posterior approach.
Objectives It remains debatable if early mobilization (EM) yields a better clinical outcome than the late mobilization (LM) in adults with an acute and displaced distal radial fracture (DRF) of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). Therefore, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing clinical results with the safety of EM with LM following ORIF. Methods Databases such as Medline, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase were searched from Jan 1, 2000, to July 31, 2021, and RCTs comparing EM with LM for DRF with ORIF were included in the analysis. The primary outcome of study included disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score at different follow-up times. Wherever the secondary outcomes included patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE), grip strength (GS), visual analog scale (VAS), wrist range of motion (WROM), and associated complications, the two independent reviewers did data extraction for the analysis. Effect sizes of outcome for each group were pooled using random-effects models; thereafter, the results were represented in the forest plots. Results Nine RCTs with 293 EM and 303 LM participants were identified and included in the study. Our analysis showed that the DASH score of the EM group was significantly better than LM group at the six weeks postoperatively (− 10.15; 95% CI − 15.74 to − 4.57, P < 0.01). Besides, the EM group also had better outcomes in PRWE, GS and WROM at 6 weeks. However, EM showed potential higher rate for implant loosening and/or fracture re-displacement complication (3.00; 95% CI 1.02–8.83, P = 0.05). Conclusion Functionally, at earlier stages, EM for patients with DRF of ORIF may have a beneficial effect than LM. The mean differences in the DASH score at 6 weeks surpassed the minimal clinically important difference; however, the potentially higher risk of implant loosening and/or fracture re-displacement cannot be ignored. Due to the lack of definitive evidence, multicenter and large sample RCTs are required for determining the optimal rehabilitation protocol for DRF with ORIF. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021240214 2021/2/28.
Surface integrity has a very significant effect on surface roughness and surface microhardness. These are the main characteristics of surface integrity. The present study investigated the influence of the cutting depth (ap), the cutting speed ( v c ), and the feed rate (f) on the surface roughness (Ra) and surface microhardness (HV) in turning TC17 titanium alloy. Data obtained from the Box-Behnken design experiments were used to develop the response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural network (ANN) models. Through analysis of variance (ANOVA), the relative effects of each cutting parameter on the responses have been determined. To examine the interaction effects of cutting parameters, 3D surface plots were generated. The desirability function approach (DFA) was used to optimize cutting parameters to achieve the lowest surface roughness and highest surface microhardness. The results show that ANN response prediction models have higher prediction accuracy and lower error than RSM prediction models. The optimization parameters are 60 m/min cutting speed, 0.06 mm/r feed rate, and 0.2 mm cutting depth for the minimum surface roughness and maximum surface microhardness with a maximum error of 2.83%.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.