ObjectiveTo know the fundamental status of painless digestive endoscopy in China. MethodsA 23-item survey including multiple choices and fill-in-the-blank questions on 3 pages was performed on anesthesiologists in China excluding Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong on www.xqnmz.com and www.dxy.cn/bbs from November 1 to December 31, 2013, among which 5 questions were on personal details, 9 on hospital and department, and 9 on clinic details. The results about the basic facts, risk factors of anesthesia and drug use and monitoring of painless digestive endoscopy in China were analyzed. ResultsA total of 726 questionnaires were collected, among which 667 (91.87%) were considered valid. Interviewed hospitals included hospitals from 31 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions excluding Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong. Thirty questionnaires were from the first-grade hospitals (4.5%), 292 from the second-grade (43.78%), and 345 from the third-grade (51.72%). And 69.12% of the questionnaires showed these hospitals could only carry out painless gastroscopy and/or colonoscopy, while 80.81% showed the number of the mean painless endoscopy cases was 0-30 per day; 47.23% of the respondents working in digestive endoscopy center had to complete the anesthesia procedure alone, and 35.83% of the respondents illustrated their digestive endoscopy centers had established the post anesthesia care unit; 62.97% were equipped with anesthesia apparatus or ventilator; 89.96% were equipped with tracheal intubation tool; and 21.44% were equipped with defibrillator. Among them, 25.79% did not prepare rescue medicines regularly in digestive endoscopy center. Propofol was the most frequently used anesthetic, and composited fentanyl was at the highest use rate for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Respondents who used electrocardiogram, non-invasive blood pressure and pulse oxygen saturation the least to monitor during painless gastroscopy and colonoscopy took up 43.48% and 46.08% respectively. ConclusionPainless digestive endoscopy needs further development and standardization with the regulation of related guidelines and standardized residents training.
ObjectiveTo compare the knee flexion degree after high-flexion versus standard total knee arthroplasty (TKA). MethodRelevant randomized controlled trials on comparison of knee flexion degree after high-flexion versus standard TKA were identified from Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure from the establishment of these databases until October 2015. A systematic review was performed to compare knee flexion degree, knee function score and complications between the two types of prostheses. Analyses were conducted using RevMan version 5.2.0 software. ResultsTwenty-one studies were included in this Meta-analysis. The results showed that the knee flexion degree was higher in high-flexion group than that in the standard group[WMD=2.71°, 95%CI (0.96, 4.46)°, P=0.002]; while the difference was not significant leaving out six low-quality literatures[WMD=0.72°, 95%CI (-0.15, 1.60)°, P=0.10]. There was no significant difference in knee function score between the two groups[WMD=-0.54, 95%CI (-1.34, 0.25), P=0.18]. There was no significant difference in complications between the two groups[OR=0.99, 95%CI (0.53, 1.84), P=0.98]. ConclusionsThe important finding from the current study is that there is no evidence to support that the use of high-flexion prostheses is superior to the standard prostheses during total knee arthroplasty.