scholarly journals Association between surgeon grade and implant survival following hip and knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e047882
Author(s):  
Timothy J Fowler ◽  
Alex L Aquilina ◽  
Ashley W Blom ◽  
Adrian Sayers ◽  
Michael R Whitehouse

ObjectiveTo investigate the association between surgeon grade (trainee vs consultant) and implant survival following primary hip and knee replacement.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Data sourcesMEDLINE and Embase from inception to 6 October 2021.SettingUnits performing primary hip and/or knee replacements since 1990.ParticipantsAdult patients undergoing either a primary hip or knee replacement, predominantly for osteoarthritis.InterventionWhether the surgeon recorded as performing the procedure was a trainee or not.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was net implant survival reported as a Kaplan-Meier survival estimate. The secondary outcome was crude revision rate. Both outcomes were reported according to surgeon grade.ResultsNine cohort studies capturing 4066 total hip replacements (THRs), 936 total knee replacements (TKRs) and 1357 unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) were included (5 THR studies, 2 TKR studies and 2 UKR studies). The pooled net implant survival estimates for THRs at 5 years were 97.9% (95% CI 96.6% to 99.2%) for trainees and 98.1% (95% CI 97.1% to 99.2%) for consultants. The relative risk of revision of THRs at 5 and 10 years was 0.88 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.70) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.26), respectively. For TKRs, the net implant survival estimates at 10 years were 96.2% (95% CI 94.0% to 98.4%) for trainees and 95.1% (95% CI 93.0% to 97.2%) for consultants. We report a narrative summary of UKR outcomes.ConclusionsThere is no strong evidence in the existing literature that trainee surgeons have worse outcomes compared with consultants, in terms of the net survival or crude revision rate of hip and knee replacements at 5–10 years follow-up. These findings are limited by the quality of the existing published data and are applicable to countries with established orthopaedic training programmes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019150494.

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e036268
Author(s):  
Lin-yue Zhou ◽  
Yuan Zhang ◽  
Yuan Tian ◽  
Xiaoxu Fu ◽  
Li-zhen Wang ◽  
...  

IntroductionAbout 463 million adults aged 20–79 have diabetes globally. Mental disorders often exist in patients with diabetes as comorbidities, which can lead to aggravation of the diseases, increased difficulties in treatment, as well as elevated mortality rates. Music intervention has been applied in the treatment of comorbidities for 12 years now, but there are still no recommendations due to the lack of evidence. Thus, a meta-analysis is necessary to evaluate the effect of music intervention in treating mental disorders of patients with diabetes.Methods and analysisWe will search the following nine online electronic databases from their inception until March 2020: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP) and Chinese Biomedical and Medical Database. We also plan to search other relevant resources, including grey literature and the reference lists of relevant publications. Only randomised controlled trials of music intervention to treat depression or anxiety in patients with diabetes will be involved. The primary outcomes include the depression score and anxiety score measured on certain scales, and the secondary outcome is safety. Data extraction will be independently implemented by two researchers. The risk of bias will be evaluated through the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias tool. Eventually, all the data will be analysed via the Review Manager V.5.3 software.Ethics and disseminationThis meta-analysis will provide information about applying music intervention to treat depression or anxiety in patients with diabetes. No ethical approval is required because this meta-analysis is based on published data. The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019146439


BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. e022920 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marinus Winters ◽  
Sinead Holden ◽  
Bill Vicenzino ◽  
Nicky J Welton ◽  
Deborah M Caldwell ◽  
...  

IntroductionPatellofemoral pain (PFP) affects 1 in every 14 adults. Many treatments for PFP have been evaluated, but the comparative effectiveness of all available treatments has never been examined. Network meta-analysis is the only design to study the comparative effectiveness of all available treatments in one synthesis. This protocol describes the methods for a systematic review including network meta-analysis to assess which treatment is most likely to be effective for patients with PFP.Methods and analysisThe primary outcome measures of this network meta-analysis are the global rating of change scale at 6–12 weeks, 13–52 weeks and >52 weeks. The secondary outcome measures are patient-rated pain scales at 6–12 weeks, 13–52 weeks and >52 weeks. Completed published and unpublished randomised controlled trials with full-text reports are eligible for inclusion. We will search Embase, PubMed (including MEDLINE), CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, OpenGrey, WorldCat, conference Proceedings and multiple trial registers for relevant reports. Two researchers will appraise the study eligibility and perform data extraction. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2.0.Bayesian network meta-analyses will be constructed for global rating of change scale and patient-rated pain. Consistency between direct and indirect comparisons will be assessed. Between study variability will be explored, and a threshold analysis for the credibility of the network meta-analyses’ conclusions will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required, as this study will be based on published data. The study commenced at 1 February 2018, and its expected completion date is 15 January 2019. Full publication of the work will be sought in an international peer-reviewed journal, as well as translational articles to disseminate the work to clinical practitioners.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018079502.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e033267
Author(s):  
Dengfeng Wang ◽  
Yang Yu ◽  
Pengxian Tao ◽  
Dan Wang ◽  
Yajing Chen ◽  
...  

IntroductionVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious life-threatening complication in patients with gastric cancer. Abnormal coagulation function and tumour-related treatment may contribute to the occurrence of VTE. Many guidelines considered that surgical treatment would put patients with cancer at high risk of VTE, so positive prevention is needed. However, there are no studies that have systematically reviewed the postoperative risk and distribution of VTE in patients with gastric cancer. We thus conduct this systematic review to determine the risk of VTE in patients with gastric cancer undergoing surgery and provide some evidence for clinical decision-making.Methods and analysisStudies reporting the incidence of VTE after gastric cancer surgery will be included. Primary studies of randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, population-based surveys and cross-sectional studies are eligible for this review and only studies published in Chinese and English will be included. We will search the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang data from their inception to November 2019. Two reviewers will independently select studies and extract data. The quality of each included study will be assessed with tools corresponding to their study design. Meta-analysis will be used to pool the incidence data from included studies. Heterogeneity of the estimates across studies will be assessed, if necessary, a subgroup analysis will be performed to explore the source of heterogeneity. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method is applied to assess the level of evidence obtained from this systematic review.Ethics and disseminationThis proposed systematic review and meta-analysis is based on published data, and thus ethical approval is not required. The results of this review will be sought for publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019144562


2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Elbayouk ◽  
U Halim ◽  
A Ali ◽  
S Javed ◽  
C Cullen

Abstract Background The aim of this systematic review was to outline the prevalence and impact of Gender bias and sexual discrimination (GBSD) in orthopaedics, and to investigate interventions countering such behaviours. Method Original research papers pertaining to the prevalence and impact of gender bias or sexual discrimination, or mitigating strategies in orthopaedics, were suitable for inclusion. PRISMA guidelines were adhered to in this review. Results Of 570 papers, 27 were eligible for inclusion. A total of 13 papers discussed the prevalence of GBSD, whilst 13 related to the impact of these behaviours, and 6 discussed mitigating strategies. GBSD were found to be prevalent in the orthopaedic workplace, with all sources showing females to be the victims. The impact of GBSD includes poor workforce representation, lower salaries, barriers to career progression, and reduced academic output for females in orthopaedics. Mitigating strategies in the literature are focussed on encouraging females to apply for orthopaedic training programmes, by providing female role models, mentors, and educational interventions. Conclusions GBSD are highly prevalent in orthopaedic surgery, impacting females at all stages of their careers. Mitigating strategies have been tested but are limited in their scope. As such, the orthopaedic community as a whole is obliged to do more to tackle GBSD.


Vascular ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 170853812199127
Author(s):  
Lixin Wang ◽  
Enci Wang ◽  
Fei Liu ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Xiaolong Shu ◽  
...  

Objective This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the published data on the efficacy and safety of therapies for superior mesenteric venous thrombosis (SMVT), aiming to provide a reference and set of recommendations for clinical treatment. Methods Relevant databases were searched for studies published from 2000 to June 2020 on SMVT treated with conservative treatment, surgical treatment, or endovascular approach. Different treatment types were grouped for analysis and comparison, and odds ratios with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The outcomes were pooled using meta-analytic methods and presented by forest plots. Results Eighteen articles, including eight on SMVT patients treated with endovascular therapies, were enrolled. The treatment effectiveness was compared between different groups according to the change of symptoms, the occurrence of complications, and mortality as well. The conservative treatment group had better efficacy compared to the surgery group (89.0% vs. 78.6%, P <0.05), and the one-year survival rate was also higher (94.4% vs. 80.0%, P >0.05), but without statistical significance. As for endovascular treatment, the effectiveness was significantly higher than the surgery group (94.8% vs. 75.2%, P <0.05), and the conservative treatment group as well (93.3% vs. 86.3%, P >0.05), which still requires further research for the lack of statistical significance. Conclusions Present findings indicate that anticoagulation, as conservative treatment should be the preferred clinical option in the clinic for SMVT, due to its better curative effect compared to other treatment options, including lower mortality, fewer complications, and better prognosis. Moreover, endovascular treatment is a feasible and promising approach that is worth in-depth research, for it is less invasive than surgery and has relatively better effectiveness, thus can provide an alternative option for SMVT treatment and may be considered as a reliable method in clinical.


2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110164
Author(s):  
Elsayed Said ◽  
Mohamed E. Abdel-Wanis ◽  
Mohamed Ameen ◽  
Ali A. Sayed ◽  
Khaled H. Mosallam ◽  
...  

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: Arthrodesis has been a valid treatment option for spinal diseases, including spondylolisthesis and lumbar spinal stenosis. Posterolateral and posterior lumbar interbody fusion are amongst the most used fusion techniques. Previous reports comparing both methods have been contradictory. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish substantial evidence on which fusion method would achieve better outcomes. Methods: Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes of interest between posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). We extracted data on clinical outcome, complication rate, revision rate, fusion rate, operation time, and blood loss. We calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome and the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: We retrieved 8 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, with a total of 616 patients (308 PLF, 308 PLIF). The results of our analysis revealed that patients who underwent PLIF had significantly higher fusion rates. No statistically significant difference was identified in terms of clinical outcomes, complication rates, revision rates, operation time or blood loss. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comparison between PLF and PLIF based on RCTs. Although PLIF had higher fusion rates, both fusion methods achieve similar clinical outcomes with equal complication rate, revision rate, operation time and blood loss at 1-year minimum follow-up.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e042816
Author(s):  
Stefan Malmberg ◽  
Susanna Petrén ◽  
Ronny Gunnarsson ◽  
Katarina Hedin ◽  
Pär-Daniel Sundvall

PurposeThe main objective of this review was to describe and quantify the association between Fusobacterium necrophorum (FN) and acute sore throat in primary healthcare (PHC).MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Scopus and PubMed for case–control studies reporting the prevalence of FN in patients attending primary care for an uncomplicated acute sore throat as well as in healthy controls. Only studies published in English were considered. Publications were not included if they were case studies, or if they included patients prescribed antibiotics before the throat swab, patients with a concurrent malignant disease, on immunosuppression, having an HIV infection, or patients having another acute infection in addition to a sore throat. Inclusion criteria and methods were specified in advance and published in PROSPERO. The primary outcome was positive etiologic predictive value (P-EPV), quantifying the probability for an association between acute sore throat and findings of FN in the pharynx. For comparison, our secondary outcome was the corresponding P-EPV for group A Streptococcus (GAS).ResultsPubMed and Scopus yielded 258 and 232 studies, respectively. Removing duplicates and screening the abstracts resulted in 53 studies subsequently read in full text. For the four studies of medium to high quality included in the meta-analysis, the cumulative P-EPV regarding FN was 64% (95% CI 33% to 83%). GAS, based on data from the same publications and patients, yielded a positive EPV of 93% (95% CI 83% to 99%).ConclusionsThe results indicate that FN may play a role in PHC patients with an acute sore throat, but the association is much weaker compared with GAS.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aongart Mahittikorn ◽  
Frederick Ramirez Masangkay ◽  
Kwuntida Uthaisar Kotepui ◽  
Giovanni De Jesus Milanez ◽  
Manas Kotepui

Abstract Background Malaria mixed infections are often unrecognized by microscopists in the hospitals, and a delay or failure to treat Plasmodium-mixed infection may lead to aggravated morbidity and increased mortality. The present study aimed to quantify the pooled proportion and risk of malarial recurrences after the treatment of Plasmodium-mixed infection. The results of the study may provide benefits in the management of Plasmodium-mixed infection in co-endemic regions. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis searched the international Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; ID = CRD42020199709), MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus for potentially relevant studies in any language published between January 1, 1936, and July 20, 2020, assessing drug efficacy in patients with Plasmodium-mixed infection. The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of Plasmodium parasitemia after initiating antimalarial treatment for Plasmodium-mixed infection. The secondary outcome was the pooled risk ratio (RR) of malarial recurrence in Plasmodium-mixed infection compared with those in Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax mono-infection. The pooled analyses were calculated by random-effects meta-analysis. After the initial treatment in different days of recurrences (≤ 28 days or > 28 days), the risk of Plasmodium parasitemia was compared in subgroup analysis. Results Out of 5217 screened studies, 11 were included in the meta-analysis, including 4390 patients from six countries. The pooled prevalence of all recurrences of Plasmodium-mixed parasitemia was 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 16–43; I2: 99.2%; 11 studies). The RR of malarial recurrence within 28 days after the initial treatment (clinical treatment failure) of Plasmodium-mixed parasitemia compared with the treatment of P. falciparum was 1.22 (p: 0.029; 95% CI 1.02–1.47; Cochran Q: 0.93; I2: 0%; six studies), while there was no significant difference in the risk of recurrence 28 days after initial treatment compared with the treatment of P. falciparum (p: 0.696, RR: 1.14; 95% CI 0.59–2.18; Cochran Q < 0.05; I2: 98.2%; four studies). The subgroup analysis of antimalarial drugs showed that significant malarial recurrence within 28 days was observed in patients treated with artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) with no significant heterogeneity (p: 0.028, RR: 1.31; 95% CI 1.03–1.66; Cochran Q: 0.834; I2: 0%). Conclusions The present findings showed a high prevalence of malarial recurrence after the initial treatment of Plasmodium-mixed infection. Moreover, significant malaria recurrence of mixed infection occurred within 28 days after treatment with ACTs. Graphic Abstract


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e033461
Author(s):  
Kyeore Bae ◽  
Si Yeon Song

IntroductionAromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia (AIA) is a major adverse event of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and leads to premature discontinuation of AI therapy in breast cancer patients. The objective of this protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) is to provide the methodology to compare the change in pain intensity between different AIA treatments and demonstrate the rank probabilities for different treatments by combining all available direct and indirect evidence.Methods and analysisPubMed, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched to identify publications in English from inception to November 2019. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different treatments for AIA in postmenopausal women with stage 0–III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. The primary endpoints will be the change in patient-reported pain intensity from baseline to post-treatment. The number of adverse events will be presented as a secondary outcome.Both pairwise meta-analysis and NMA with the Frequentist approach will be conducted. We will demonstrate summary estimates with forest plots in meta-analysis and direct and mixed evidence with a ranking of the treatments as the P-score in NMA. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials will be used to assess the methodological quality within individual RCTs. The quality of evidence will be assessed.Ethics and disseminationAs this review does not involve individual patients, ethical approval is not required. The results of this systematic review and NMA will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This review will provide valuable information on AIA therapeutic options for clinicians, health practitioners and breast cancer survivors.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019136967.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document