Objective?To determine the effectiveness and safety of surgical treatment compared to conservative treatment for adult acute nondisplaced scaphoid fractures. Methods?We searched the specialized trials registered in the Cochrane muscle group, The Cochrane Library (CCTR), MEDLINE (1966 to 2007), EMbase (1980 to 2007), PubMed (1966 to 2007), NRR, CCT, and CBMdisc (1979 to July 2007). We also handsearched some Chinese orthopedics journals. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical treatment versus conservative treatment for adult acute nondisplaced scaphoid fractures were included. The extraction of data and the methodological assessment of included RCTs were performed by two reviewers independently. RevMan software was used to carry out meta-analysis. Results?Five RCTs including 269 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with conservative treatment, the time taken before returning to work or participation in sports was shorter in the surgical treatment group. Because of inadequate extraction data and heterogeneity in the included studies, the results of the time of union and grip strength were not consistent. But all the results showed favorable tendencies. No significant difference was found in wrist motion and complications between the surgical and conservative treatment groups. Conclusion?Compared with conservative treatment for adult acute nondisplaced scaphoid fractures, surgical treatment could decrease the time of returning to work or participation in sports, decrease the time of union, and improve grip strength. But it does not improve the wrist motion or decrease the complications. Because of the small sample size, this conclusion should further tested using well-designed, large scale RCTs.
Objictive To evaluate the efficacy of decompression with and without fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Methods We searched the Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to April, 2006), EMBASE (1984 to April, 2006), the China Biological Medicine Database (to Dec., 2005), VIP (1989 to April, 2006) and hand-searched several related journals for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) involving the comparison of the outcomes between decompression with and without fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. The quality of the included trials was assessed. RevMan 4.2.8 software was used for statistical analysis. Results Seven studies involving 412 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that no statistically significant differences were observed between the two operative procedures in the cumulative clinical outcome (OR1.83, 95%CI 0.92, 3.41), incidence of postoperative leg pain (OR 1.04, 95%CI 0.48, 2.25), incidence of perioperative complications (OR 1.15, 95%CI 0.51, 2.60), incidence of re-operation (OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.30, 1.56) or pre and postoperative pain scores [Pre-op WMD 0.12, 95%CI (-0.44,0.68); Post-op WMD 0.08, 95%CI (-1.08,1.25)]. The only statistical significance was observed in the incidence of postoperative back pain (OR 0.25, 95%CI 0.14, 0.46). Four studies described the length of operation, the intraoperative blood loss, the duration of external fixation postoperative and the total cost in hospital, which revealed that decompression alone was superior to decompression plus fusion. Three studies described the relationships between the clinical outcome and the changes in segmental range of motion/disc height pre- and post-operatively, as well as the flexion-extension radiographs, which revealed that decompression plus fusion was superior to decompression alone. Conclusions There are no significant differences between the two procedures in clinical outcomes, incidences of postoperative leg pain, re-operation and complications. Decompression with fusion leads to fewer patients suffering from postoperative lumbago than that of decompression alone. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the radiographs may predict the clinical outcomes. More high quality, large-scale randomized controlled trials are required.
Objective To assess the effectiveness of surgical interventions for lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults.Methods RCTs of surgical treatment for adult lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis were identified from specialized trials registered in Cochrane Back Group, The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2004)，additional electronic search (including MEDLINE (1966 to 2004)，EMBASE (1980 to 2004) and CBM), handsearching for Chinese journals. Two reviewers assessed the quality of the trials and extracted data independently. Meta analysis was conducted using RevMan 4.2. Results Four published trials including a total of 277 patients were included. Three trials compared different operative procedures and one trial considered conservative versus surgical treatment for lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults. Two trials had limitations of trial design which at times gave considerable potential for bias. As very few studies and patients were included, and different score criteria were used to assess the clinical outcomes in the review, we decided to provide a descriptive summary only. All trials drew a conclusion that lumbar posterolateral fusion for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis could relieve pain and improve clinical outcome. There was no significant difference in fusion rate and improvement of clinical outcomes between different operative procedures. One trial showed that the lumbar posterolateral fusion could improve function and relieve pain more efficiently than an exercise program. Three trials indicated there was no difference in fusion rate and improvement of clinical outcomes between different operative methods. One trial suggested that instrumented posterolateral fusion did not improve fusion rate but increased complication rates, operation time and bleeding loss. Two trials considered the role of decompressive laminectomy and reached a conflicting conclusion. Conclusions There is no adequate evidence about the most effective technique of treatment for adult lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis. There is limited evidence that the lumbar posterolateral fusion for adult isthmic spondylolisthesis can efficiently relieve pain and improve clinical outcome. There is no evidence that the use of pedicle screw fixation can improve the fusion rate or the clinical outcome. At present, there is no enough evidence available from randomised trials to support the routine clinical use of instrumented fusion for lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults. As very few studies and patients were included in the review, it was cautious to draw any conclusions from the review. More trials with high quality on methodology are needed.