Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of both olanzapine combined with fluoxetine (combination therapy) and fluoxetine (monotherapy) for refractory depression. Methods According to the computer retrieval from PubMed (1966 to September 2009), Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2009), EMbase (1974 to September 2009), SCI (1974 to September 2009), CNKI (1994 to September 2009), CBM (1978 to September 2009), CSJD (1989 to September 2009) and Wanfang Database (1997 to September 2009), and the manual retrieval from related journals and conference proceedings were conducted, to include randomized controlled trials of comparison in between olanzapine combined with fluoxetine and fluoxetine in treating refractory depression. We collected the valid data after assessing the methodology quality of included studies on the basis of Jadad scoring standard, and conducted meta-analysis with RevMan 5.0 software. Results A total of 7 studies with 1 230 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that, there was no significant difference between two groups about the scores of HAMA (Hamilton Anxiety Scale) at the end of the 1st week, but the olanzapine combined with fluoxetine in trial group was much better for relieving anxiety situation compared to fluoxetine in control group at the end of the 2nd, 4th, 8th and 12th week. In accordance with the scores of CGI (Clinical Global Impression Scale), there was no significant difference at the end of 2nd and 4th week after treatment, but there was a significant difference at the end of 8th and 12th week. As to the changes of MADRS (Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale), the trial group was much distinct than control group at the end of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 8th week. In summary, the clinical effect of trial group was superior to that of control group, and there was no significant difference in adverse reactions between two groups (RR=1.10, 95%CI 0.99 to 1.23). Conclusion Current evidence shows that, the clinical effect and safety of olanzapine combined with fluoxetine in treating refractory depression is obviously superior to that of fluoxetine.
ObjectiveTo review the role and mechanism of protein factors in bone remodeling, and provides theoretical basis for further elucidating the pathogenesis and clinical treatment of bone-related diseases. MethodsThe relevant research results at home and abroad in recent years were extensively consulted, analyzed, and summarized. ResultsBone remodeling is an important physiological process to maintain bone homeostasis. Protein, as an important stimulator in bone remodeling, regulates the balance between bone resorption and bone formation. ConclusionAt present, the research on the mechanism of protein in bone remodeling is insufficient. Therefore, it is necessary to further study the specific time, process, and interaction network of protein in bone remodeling, and to confirm its mechanism in bone remodeling, so as to reveal and treat the pathogenesis of bone-related diseases.
Objective To explore the application value and effectiveness of pelvic unlocking closed reduction device for the treatment of unstable pelvic posterior ring disruption. Methods A retrospective analysis of clinical data of 243 cases of unstable pelvic posterior ring disruption treated with pelvic unlocking closed reduction device in 13 orthopaedic trauma centers across the country between December 2018 and June 2020 was performed. There were 139 males and 104 females; the age ranged from 18 to 92 years, with an average age of 48.5 years. The cause of injury included 132 cases of traffic accident injuries, 102 cases of falling from height, and 9 cases of crushing injuries. According to AO/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) classification, there were 5 cases of type 61-B1, 13 cases of type 61-B2, 32 cases of type 61-C1.1, 47 cases of type 61-C1.2, 89 cases of type 61-C1.3, 35 cases of type 61-C2, and 22 cases of type 61-C3. The time from injury to operation was 2-121 days, with a median of 10 days. Preoperative preparation time, installation time of unlocking closed reduction device, fracture reduction time, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, intraoperative blood loss, and surgical complications were recorded, and Matta scoring standard was used to evaluate the quality of fracture reduction. According to Matta evaluation results, the patients were divided into two subgroups: excellent-good group and fair-poor group. The differences in gender, age, time from injury to operation, AO/OTA classification, and perioperative clinical indicators were compared between the two groups, and the effects of baseline data and perioperative indicators on the quality of fracture reduction were studied. Results Pelvic unlocking closed reduction device did not interfere with the display of the pelvic structure and fracture displacement direction during the intraoperative fluoroscopy, effectively correcting the displacement of the pelvic ring. The preoperative preparation time was 17-60 minutes, with an average of 30 minutes; installation time of unlocking closed reduction device was 10-32 minutes, with an average of 21 minutes; intraoperative fracture reduction time was 15-205 minutes, with an average of 49.2 minutes; intraoperative fluoroscopy times were 41-420 times, with an average of 132 times; intraoperative blood loss was 40-1 500 mL, with an average of 71.5 mL. The reduction quality of pelvic fracture was evaluated according to Matta score immediately after operation. The results were excellent in 153 cases, good in 61 cases, fair in 24 cases, and poor in 5 cases. The excellent and good rate was 88.1%. Further subgroup analysis showed that there was no significant difference in other indexes (P>0.05) between the excellent-good group and the fair-poor group except for the time from injury to operation and AO/OTA classification (P<0.05). Among them, the excellent-good reduction rate was 92.2% (119/129) in patients with injury-to-operation time less than 10 days, and the fair-poor reduction rate was 25.7% (9/35) and 40.9% (9/22) in patients with AO/OTA 61-C2 and 61-C3 types, respectively. There was no surgery-related complication due to the application of the pelvic unlocked reduction device, no secondary iliac fractures, vascular, or nerve injuries, and postoperative CT showed that all channel screws were located in the osseous channel. ConclusionThe pelvic unlocking reduction device can effectively help to reduce the unstable pelvic posterior ring and maintain reduction, meet the needs of different projection angles of pelvic fracture with intraoperative C-arm fluoroscopy. The system facilitate the operation of pelvic reduction and precise fixation.