Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of testosterone supplementary treatment for the middle-aged and the senile with insulin resistance (IR). Methods Such databases as PubMed (Jan. 1966 to July 2010), EMbase (Jan. 1984 to July 2010), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2010), CBM (1978 to July 2010), CNKI (Jan. 1994 to July 2010), WanFang Data (1994 to July 2010) and VIP Data (1989 to July 2010) were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about testosterone treatment for IR were included. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and evaluated the quality of the included studies. Meta-analyses were performed for the results of homogeneous studies by using RevMan 5.0 software, and other results not suitable for meta-analysis were described with qualitative analyses. Results Nine RCTs involving 573 patients were included. Of them, 308 cases were in the testosterone group and 265 in the placebo group. The baseline data of studies was comparable. The results of meta-analyses showed that, a) Efficacy: testosterone was superior to placebo in decreasing insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) (WMD= –?0.56, 95%CI –?0.75 to –?0.37) and fasting insulin (FINS) (WMD= –2.4, 95%CI –3.25 to –1.56); and b) Safety: no significant difference was found in prostate specific antigen (PSA) (WMD= –?0.02, 95%CI –?0.22 to 0.18). Conclusion The testosterone supplementary treatment for insulin resistance is superior to the placebo, and there is no significant difference in PSA compared to the placebo. More multicenter double-blind RCTs in large-scale are required to verify this conclusion because of lack of high quality literature with large sample size.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of Taylor spatial frame (TSF) and unilateral external fixator in the treatment of tibiofibular open fractures.MethodsBetween January 2016 and July 2018, 74 patients with tibiofibular open fracture who met the selection criteria were divided into TSF group (43 cases, fixed with TSF) and unilateral group (31 cases, fixed with unilateral external fixator) according to the principle of entering the group every other day. There was no significant difference in gender, age, affected side, cause of injury, type of fracture between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, fracture healing time, removal time of external fixator, and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. The limb function was evaluated according to Johner-Wruhs criteria for evaluating the final effectiveness of tibial shaft fracture treatment. The recovery of lower limb force line was ecaluated by LUO Congfeng et al. criteria.ResultsAll patients were followed up 8-22 months, with a median of 12 months. All fractures healed, and no complication such as delayed union, nonunion, or osteomyelitis occurred. The operation time, fracture healing time, and removal time of external fixator in TSF group were significantly shorter than those in unilateral group (P<0.05). At 3 months after the removal of the external fixator, the limb function was evaluated according to the Johner-Wruhs standard. In TSF group, 41 cases were excellent, 1 case was good, and 1 case was fair, and the excellent and good rate was 97.67%; in unilateral group, 30 cases were excellent and 1 case was fair, and the excellent and good rate was 96.77%; there was no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.666). At 4 months after operation, the recovery of lower limb force line was ecaluated by LUO Congfeng et al. criterion. In TSF group, 41 cases were excellent, 2 cases were good, and 1 case was fair, and the excellent and good rate was 97.67%; in unilateral group, 29 cases were excellent, 1 case was good, 1 case was fair, and the excellent and good rate was 96.77%; there was no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.666).ConclusionFor tibiofibular open fracture, on the premise of fracture healing, TSF technology is superior to unilateral external fixation in terms of shortening operation time, fracture healing time, and removal time of external fixator.
Objective To study effects of enteral immunonutrition and econutrition on intestinal mucosa barrier function in wounded rats. Methods Forty Wistar rats were randomly divided into four groups, with ten rats in each group 〔ie.control group, enteral nutrition (EN) group, enteral immunonutrition (EIN) group and enteral econutrition (EEN) group〕. After gastrostomy, rats in each group were treated with the isocaloric and isonitrogenous nutritional formulas for 7 days, respectively. The morphology of ileum membrane was studied, and the quantities of IgA+, CD3+, CD4+ and CD8+ cells (each HP) of ileum membrane were determined. Results The villus height, crypt depth, mucosal thickness (except EN group) and villus surface area of ileum were increased in EN, EIN and EEN group compared with control group (P＜0.05), but there was no significant difference among the former three groups (Pgt;0.05). The numbers of IgA+, CD3+, CD4+ and CD8+ cells were increased in EN, EIN and EEN group compared with control group (P＜0.05), and those numbers in EN group were lower than those in EIN and EEN group (P＜0.05). Conclusion EIN and EEN may improve intestine mechanical barrier function and promote restoration of small intestine mucous membrane barrier function in rats. EIN and EEN also improve intestine immune barrier function and strengthen its immune function.