解剖锁定钢板联合同种异体腓骨治疗肱骨近端骨折疗效的Meta分析

文题释义：肱骨近端骨折：肱骨近端包括肱骨头及大结节、小结节，中老年人骨质疏松及低能量损伤可导致肱骨近端骨折。 同种异体腓骨：取自于人体异体，经过加工处理，去除其免疫原性，保留其骨性结构，可用于移植修复骨缺损，起到支撑作用。 背景：肱骨近端骨折是临床常见骨折，但对肱骨近端内侧柱缺乏支撑的骨折目前仍是治疗难点，并发症常见，失败率较高。 目的：比较解剖锁定钢板联合同种异体腓骨与单纯解剖锁定钢板治疗肱骨近端骨折的疗效。 方法：使用计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Google Scholar、中国知网、万方、维普数据库，检索时间均从建库到2020年2月。检索国内外关于对比研究解剖锁定钢板联合同种异体腓骨与单纯解剖锁定钢板治疗肱骨近端骨折疗效的文献。2名研究员根据纳入和排除标准分别独立筛选文献，提取数据，评估文献中的偏倚风险。纳入12篇相关文献使用RevMan 5.2软件将以下指标进行Meta分析，包括影像学数据、功能评分和并发症。结果与结论：①通过文献检索、根据纳入和排除标准，12篇文献纳入研究，其中11篇为回顾性队列研究，1篇为随机对照研究；纳入研究文献质量高，但GRADE证据质量级别较低。②共纳入958例患者，其中解剖锁定钢板联合同种异体腓骨组411例，单纯解剖锁定钢板组547例；③Meta分析结果显示，解剖锁定钢板联合同种异体腓骨组术后1年肱骨头高度差值(MD=-2.40，95%CI：-2.49至-2.31)、颈干角差值(MD= -6.14，95%CI：-6.62至-5.67)、目测类比评分(MD=-0.22，95%CI：-0.35至-0.08)、肩关节功能评分(MD=4.12，95%CI：2.18-6.06)，上肢伤残评分(MD=-10.32，95%CI：-13.44至-7.19)、术后2年的目测类比评分(MD=-0.37，95%CI：-0.55至-0.19)、肩关节功能评分(MD=5.07，95%CI：2.86-7.27)、总体并发症(OR=0.31，95%CI：0.20-0.48)及肱骨头螺钉切出(OR=0.25，95%CI：0.11-0.55)均明显优于单纯解剖锁定钢板组(P < 0.05)，肱骨头坏死(OR=0.94，95%CI：0.47-1.88)，两组间差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)；④因此，较弱的证据提示，肱骨近端解剖锁定钢板联合同种异体腓骨治疗肱骨近端骨折的短期疗效优于解剖锁定钢板，可减少并发症的发生，促进功能恢复。ORCID: 0000-0002-8486-3932(阳运康) 中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程     

Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Efficacy and Safety of UDCA-Based Therapies in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis

Major ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)-based therapies for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) include UDCA only, or combined with either methotrexate (MTX), corticosteroids (COT), colchicine (COC), or bezafibrate (BEF). As the optimum treatment regimen is unclear and warrants exploration, we aimed to compare these therapies in terms of patient mortality or liver transplantation (MOLT) and adverse events (AE).PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials up to August 31, 2014. We estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) for MOLT and odds ratios (ORs) for AE. A sensitivity analysis based on the dose of UDCA was also executed.Thirty-one eligible articles were included. Compared with COT plus UDCA, UDCA (HR 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09–1.39), BEF plus UDCA (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.02–4.83), COC plus UDCA (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.07–2.25), MTX plus UDCA (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.05–1.63), or OBS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.11–2.01) all provided an increased risk of MOLT. With respect to drug AE profile, although not differing appreciably, BEF plus UDCA was associated with more AEs compared with UDCA (OR 3.16, 95% CI 0.59–20.67), COT plus UDCA (OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.15–33.36), COC plus UDCA (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.09–12.16), MTX plus UDCA (OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.23–17.82), or OBS (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.53–20.75). The results of sensitivity analyses were highly consistent with previous analyses.COT plus UDCA was the optimal UDCA-based regimen for both MOLT and AEs. BEF plus UDCA was most likely to cause AEs, whereas monotherapy with UDCA and coadministriation of COT plus UDCA appeared to be associated with the fewest AEs for PBC treatment.     

不同强度经皮穴位电刺激对胸腔镜手术患者术后免疫功能的影响

目的观察不同强度经皮穴位电刺激(TEAS)对胸腔镜手术患者术后免疫功能的影响。方法将68例行胸腔镜手术治疗的患者按住院先后顺序采取随机数字表法分为低强度TEAS组、中强度TEAS组、高强度TEAS组和电针组,每组17例。4组术后在镇痛泵治疗的基础上,给予不同强度的TEAS或电针治疗。观察4组患者治疗前后T淋巴细胞亚群、自然杀伤细胞(NK细胞)和血清免疫球蛋白水平。结果4组术后CD3﹢和CD4﹢T淋巴细胞、NK细胞、血清IgM、血清IgG的水平均较术前降低(P<0.05);术后48 h低强度TEAS组和高强度TEAS组的CD3﹢和CD4﹢T淋巴细胞、NK细胞、血清IgM的水平均低于电针组(P<0.05);中强度TEAS组和电针组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。4组术后CD8﹢T淋巴细胞、CD4﹢/CD8﹢以及血清IgG水平组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论中强度TEAS能够有效改善胸腔镜手术后患者的免疫功能。     

护理教学查房在ICU教学中的临床应用效果分析

目的探讨护理教学查房在ICU教学中的临床应用效果。方法选定2018年1月-2019年1月来本院实习的100例学生,按照教学查房方法分为对照组(50例)与观察组(50例),前者采用传统教学查房方法,后者采用针对性教学查房方法。通过出科操作考试及理论考试后,比较2组实习学生的操作考核成绩、理论考核成绩指标。结果教学结束,观察组实习学生的操作考核成绩(94.11±3.54)分、理论考核成绩(85.74±5.39)分均高于对照组实习学生(P<0.05)。结论针对性教学查房方法可有效提高实习学生的操作考核成绩、理论考核成绩,改善其教学质量。     

A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.     

The primary health care physician and the cancer patient: tips and strategies for managing sexual health

There is a large and growing population of long-term cancer survivors. Primary care physicians (PCPs) are playing an increasingly greater role in the care of these patients across the continuum of cancer survivorship. In this role, PCPs are faced with the responsibility of managing a range of medical and psychosocial late effects of cancer treatment. In particular, the sexual side effects of treatment which are common and have significant impact on quality of life for the cancer survivor, often go unaddressed. This is an area of clinical care and research that has received increasing attention, highlighted by the presentation of this special issue on Cancer and Sexual Health. The aims of this review are 3-fold. First, we seek to overview common presentations of sexual dysfunction related to major cancer diagnoses in order to give the PCP a sense of the medical issues that the survivor may present with. Barriers to communication about sexual health issues between patient/PCPs in order are also described in order to emphasize the importance of PCPs initiating this important conversation. Next, we provide strategies and resources to help guide the PCP in the management of sexual dysfunction in cancer survivors. Finally, we discuss case examples of survivorship sexual health issues and highlight the role that a PCP can play in each of these case examples.