-
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Dec 2022Irreducible knee dislocations (IKD) are rare and can often be missed or misdiagnosed. The incidence of knee dislocation is quoted between 0.01% and 0.2% of all... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Irreducible knee dislocations (IKD) are rare and can often be missed or misdiagnosed. The incidence of knee dislocation is quoted between 0.01% and 0.2% of all orthopaedic injuries, with up to 4% of these dislocations sub-classified as irreducible. The primary aim of this systematic review was to analyse cases of IKD described in the literature, with a secondary aim of producing a streamlined approach for managing these patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted on 1st September 2021 in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using the online databases Medline and EMBASE. The review was registered prospectively in the PROSPERO database. Case reports or clinical studies or reporting on IKD were included. The studies were appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool and Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale.
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 60 studies eligible for inclusion, giving a total of 114 cases of IKD. Posterolateral dislocation was most common, seen in 85% of cases. The dimple sign was present in 70%. All cases required surgical intervention to achieve joint reduction. The most commonly involved structure blocking reduction was the medial collateral ligament (MCL)±medial structures, seen in 52.4%. MCL reconstruction or repair was carried out in 32.3% cases. The overall incidence of neurovascular injury was 9% and the overall complication rate was 14.4%.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of this SR we conclude that: the most common type of IKDs are PL dislocations, and the MCL, medial retinaculum and capsule and vastus medialis oblique form the most common structures involved in block to reduction and often will require open reduction and repair in acute setting if arthroscopic reduction fails. The most common pattern of injury to ligament is likely to be ACL, PCL, MCL±other structures but the MCL will be the most commonly repaired ligament. The dimple sign is often present and is highly pathognomonic of IKD. The incidence of neurovascular injury is uncommon. The most common post-operative complications likely to be encountered is medial skin necrosis and postoperative knee stiffness. Therefore, patients should be mobilised as early as possible with ROM in hinge brace.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
IV.
Topics: Humans; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Braces; Knee Dislocation; Knee Joint; Treatment Outcome; Arthroscopy
PubMed: 36126871
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103415 -
Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2023Biomechanical studies play an important role in understanding the pathophysiology of sleep disorders and providing insights to maintain sleep health. Computational... (Review)
Review
Biomechanical studies play an important role in understanding the pathophysiology of sleep disorders and providing insights to maintain sleep health. Computational methods facilitate a versatile platform to analyze various biomechanical factors in silico, which would otherwise be difficult through in vivo experiments. The objective of this review is to examine and map the applications of computational biomechanics to sleep-related research topics, including sleep medicine and sleep ergonomics. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Research gaps were identified through data synthesis on variants, outcomes, and highlighted features, as well as evidence maps on basic modeling considerations and modeling components of the eligible studies. Twenty-seven studies ( = 27) were categorized into sleep ergonomics ( = 2 on pillow; = 3 on mattress), sleep-related breathing disorders ( = 19 on obstructive sleep apnea), and sleep-related movement disorders ( = 3 on sleep bruxism). The effects of pillow height and mattress stiffness on spinal curvature were explored. Stress on the temporomandibular joint, and therefore its disorder, was the primary focus of investigations on sleep bruxism. Using finite element morphometry and fluid-structure interaction, studies on obstructive sleep apnea investigated the effects of anatomical variations, muscle activation of the tongue and soft palate, and gravitational direction on the collapse and blockade of the upper airway, in addition to the airflow pressure distribution. Model validation has been one of the greatest hurdles, while single-subject design and surrogate techniques have led to concerns about external validity. Future research might endeavor to reconstruct patient-specific models with patient-specific loading profiles in a larger cohort. Studies on sleep ergonomics research may pave the way for determining ideal spine curvature, in addition to simulating side-lying sleep postures. Sleep bruxism studies may analyze the accumulated dental damage and wear. Research on OSA treatments using computational approaches warrants further investigation.
PubMed: 37627802
DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10080917 -
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Nov 2022Elbow arthroscopic surgery has been popularized and has made significant progress during the past 3 decades. The elbow joint is relatively small and is in close... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Elbow arthroscopic surgery has been popularized and has made significant progress during the past 3 decades. The elbow joint is relatively small and is in close proximity to many neurovascular structures. These factors make elbow arthroscopic surgery technically demanding and liable to complications.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the rate of complications after elbow arthroscopic surgery.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed to perform this systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to July 2021. All clinical studies that reported complications after elbow arthroscopic surgery were included; a total of 1208 articles were initially found. Case reports, reviews, abstracts, imaging studies, technique studies, nonclinical studies, and those not reporting postoperative complications were excluded. Complication rates were pooled across studies and reported as percentages. Complications were expressed as weighted proportions with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
A total of 95 studies (14,289 elbows) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall weighted complication rate was 11.0% (95% CI, 8.8%-13.5%), with postoperative stiffness being the most commonly encountered complication (4.5% [95% CI, 2.1%-7.6%]; 158/8818 procedures). The second most encountered complication was the need for subsequent surgery with a weighted proportion of 4.1% (95% CI, 2.9%-5.6%; 177/8853 procedures) followed by nerve injury with a weighted proportion of 3.4% (95% CI, 2.6%-4.3%; 267/13,725 procedures). The ulnar nerve was the most commonly injured nerve (2.6% [95% CI, 1.9%-3.4%]; 123/6290 procedures).
CONCLUSION
The results of this study showed that elbow arthroscopic surgery is a relatively safe procedure with low complication rates.
PubMed: 36479463
DOI: 10.1177/23259671221137863 -
Frontiers in Physiology 2022Lower extremity stiffness simulates the response of the lower extremity to landing in running. However, its relationship with running economy (RE) remains unclear. This...
Lower extremity stiffness simulates the response of the lower extremity to landing in running. However, its relationship with running economy (RE) remains unclear. This study aims to explore the relationship between lower extremity stiffness and RE. This study utilized articles from the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus discussing the relationships between RE and indicators of lower extremity stiffness, namely vertical stiffness, leg stiffness, and joint stiffness. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Australian Centre for Evidence-Based Care (JBI). Pearson correlation coefficients were utilized to summarize effect sizes, and meta-regression analysis was used to assess the extent of this association between speed and participant level. In total, thirteen studies involving 272 runners met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The quality of the thirteen studies ranged from moderate to high. The meta-analysis results showed a negative correlation between vertical stiffness (r = -0.520, 95% CI, -0.635 to -0.384, < 0.001) and leg stiffness (r = -0.568, 95% CI, -0.723 to -0.357, < 0.001) and RE. Additional, there was a small negative correlation between knee stiffness and RE (r = -0.290, 95% CI, -0.508 to -0.037, = 0.025). Meta-regression results showed that the extent to which leg stiffness was negatively correlated with RE was influenced by speed (coefficient = -0.409, = 0.020, = 0.79) and participant maximal oxygen uptake (coefficient = -0.068, = 0.010, = 0.92). The results of this study suggest that vertical, leg and knee stiffness were negatively correlated with RE. In addition, maximum oxygen uptake and speed will determine whether the runner can take full advantage of leg stiffness to minimize energy expenditure.
PubMed: 36518102
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2022.1059221 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... May 2020Joint stiffness is a common complication after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, which seriously affects the efficacy of the operation and patient... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Joint stiffness is a common complication after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, which seriously affects the efficacy of the operation and patient satisfaction. After ACL reconstruction, the identification of joint stiffness' risk factors can help its prevention. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate joint stiffness' risk factors and incidence after ACL reconstruction and provide guidance on its prevention.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched to obtain relevant studies. The odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all potential risk factors were analyzed using fixed or random-effects meta-analysis in RevMan 5.2.
RESULTS
In total, there were 37 studies and 113,740 patients that were included in this study. After ACL reconstruction, joint stiffness' incidence negatively correlated with the studies publication time (R = -0.62, P = 0.0094). After ACL reconstruction, the joint stiffness overall pooled incidence was 3% (95% CI, 3-4%). Gender (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.68; P < 0.00001) was identified as a risk factor. Potential risk factors, such as trauma to surgery time interval, graft type, and concomitant surgery with meniscus injury, have no significant correlation with joint stiffness after ACL reconstruction.
CONCLUSION
This study indicated that joint stiffness' incidence after ACL reconstruction is 3% and that gender is a risk factor for joint stiffness after ACL reconstruction.
Topics: Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Humans; Incidence; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Sex Factors
PubMed: 32410648
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-020-01694-7 -
Medicine Sep 2022Osteoarthritis (OA) often affects the hands, knees, and hip joints, causing considerable pain and disability, and often affecting the patient's quality of life.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis (OA) often affects the hands, knees, and hip joints, causing considerable pain and disability, and often affecting the patient's quality of life. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are common pain relievers often applied as first line therapies for OA. However, prolonged NSAIDs application can have unwanted side effects. Given this, this study was designed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical and oral NSAIDs for the treatment of OA.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for relevant papers from their inception dates to May 2021. Our study only included randomized controlled trials comparing topical and oral NSAIDs and all data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.3 (RevMan version 5.3).
RESULTS
We identified 8 RCTs (2096 patients with OA), for evaluation and revealed that, in general, topical and oral NSAIDs presented with similar efficacies for the treatment of OA. The Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index for assessing pain relief in OA patients was (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.07; 95%CI -0.02, 0.17) and visual analog scale was (SMD -0.01; 95%CI -0.02, 0.18), and improved stiffness in OA patients (SMD 0.09; 95%Cl 0.03, 0.20).
CONCLUSIONS
Topical NSAIDs are as effective as oral NSAIDs for the treatment of OA and both topical and oral NSAIDs are equally effective in reducing pain and improving physical function in OA patients. In terms of safety, a larger number of samples are still needed to determine if there are any differences in the safety profile of topical or oral NSAIDs.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
INPLASY 2021110009.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36086745
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030354 -
BMC Medicine Dec 2023Short-stay joint replacement programmes are used in many countries but there has been little scrutiny of safety outcomes in the literature. We aimed to systematically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Short-stay joint replacement programmes are used in many countries but there has been little scrutiny of safety outcomes in the literature. We aimed to systematically review evidence on the safety of short-stay programmes versus usual care for total hip (THR) and knee replacement (KR), and optimal patient selection.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies including a comparator group reporting on 14 safety outcomes (hospital readmissions, reoperations, blood loss, emergency department visits, infection, mortality, neurovascular injury, other complications, periprosthetic fractures, postoperative falls, venous thromboembolism, wound complications, dislocation, stiffness) within 90 days postoperatively in adults ≥ 18 years undergoing primary THR or KR were included. Secondary outcomes were associations between patient demographics or clinical characteristics and patient outcomes. Four databases were searched between January 2000 and May 2023. Risk of bias and certainty of the evidence were assessed.
RESULTS
Forty-nine studies were included. Based upon low certainty RCT evidence, short-stay programmes may not reduce readmission (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.12-7.43); blood transfusion requirements (OR 1.75, 95% CI 0.27-11.36); neurovascular injury (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01-7.92); other complications (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26-1.53); or stiffness (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.53-2.05). For registry studies, there was no difference in readmission, infection, neurovascular injury, other complications, venous thromboembolism, or wound complications but there were reductions in mortality and dislocations. For interrupted time series studies, there was no difference in readmissions, reoperations, blood loss volume, emergency department visits, infection, mortality, or neurovascular injury; reduced odds of blood transfusion and other complications, but increased odds of periprosthetic fracture. For other observational studies, there was an increased risk of readmission, no difference in blood loss volume, infection, other complications, or wound complications, reduced odds of requiring blood transfusion, reduced mortality, and reduced venous thromboembolism. One study examined an outcome relevant to optimal patient selection; it reported comparable blood loss for short-stay male and female participants (p = 0.814).
CONCLUSIONS
There is low certainty evidence that short-stay programmes for THR and KR may have non-inferior 90-day safety outcomes. There is little evidence on factors informing optimal patient selection; this remains an important knowledge gap.
Topics: Male; Adult; Female; Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Patient Selection; Hemorrhage; Interrupted Time Series Analysis
PubMed: 38129857
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-023-03219-5 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2023In order to examine the relationship between 25-hydroxyl vitamin D and knee osteoarthritis (KOA), a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) publications...
OBJECTIVE
In order to examine the relationship between 25-hydroxyl vitamin D and knee osteoarthritis (KOA), a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) publications was hereby performed.
METHODS
For the purpose of finding pertinent research, the databases of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched. Factors including tibial cartilage volume, joint space width (JSW), synovial fluid volume, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) were correspondingly evaluated, and the results were expressed using SMD and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
The present meta-analysis evaluated the effects of vitamin D supplementation in patients with knee osteoarthritis, with 3,077 patients included. The results showed that vitamin D administration had a statistically significant impact on the amount of synovial fluid, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and tibial cartilage. The pain and function scales of the WOMAC scale presented a statistically significant difference, and there was no discernible difference between the vitamin D and placebo groups in the stiffness scale. Additionally, bone marrow lesions and alterations in the diameter of the joint space were not influenced by the administration of vitamin D, and according to a subgroup study, a daily vitamin D supplement containing more than 2,000 IU significantly slowed the development of synovial tissue.
CONCLUSION
Vitamin D supplementation did benefit those suffering from knee discomfort and knee dysfunction.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022332033, identifier: CRD42022332033.
PubMed: 37601800
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1200592 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Celecoxib; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28597983
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012095.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of unknown cause and affects mainly the spine, but can also affect other joints. Disease progression may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of unknown cause and affects mainly the spine, but can also affect other joints. Disease progression may result in loss of mobility and function. Sulfasalazine is a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug used in the treatment of AS. However, its efficacy remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of sulfasalazine for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for relevant randomized and quasi-randomized trials in any language, using the following sources: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 11); MEDLINE (2003 to 28 November 2013); EMBASE (2003 to 27 November 2013); CINAHL (2003 to 28 November 2013); Ovid MEDLINE data, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (28 November 2013); and the reference sections of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We evaluated randomized and quasi-randomized trials examining the benefits and harms of sulfasalazine on AS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed unblinded trial reports according to the selection criteria. Disagreements on the inclusion of the studies were resolved, when necessary, by recourse to a third review author. The same authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials and entered the data extracted from the included trials. We combined results using mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data.We restructured outcome measures for this update based on recommendations from the editorial group. Major outcomes included: pain, Bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index (BASDAI), Bath ankylosing spondylitis function index (BASFI), Bath ankylosing spondylitis metrology index (BASMI), radiographic progression, total number of withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not add any new studies to this review following the updated search. In the original review, we included 11 studies in the analysis, involving 895 participants in total. All included studies compared sulfasalazine with placebo. We judged most of the studies as low risk of bias or unclear risk of bias in five domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, selective reporting, and other sources of bias). However, for incomplete outcome data, we only judged one trial at low risk of bias.None of the included trials assessed BASDAI, BASFI, BASMI or radiographic progression. Different parameters were used to assess pain. The pooled MD for back pain measured on a 0 to 100 mm visual analogue scale was -2.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) -6.33 to 0.41; absolute risk difference 3%, 95% CI 1% to 6%; 6 trials). Compared to placebo, a significantly higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.15; absolute risk difference 4%, 95% CI 0.4% to 8.8%; 11 trials) was found in the sulfasalazine group. A serious adverse reaction was reported in one patient taking sulfasalazine (Peto odds ratio 7.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 378.16).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is not enough evidence to support any benefit of sulfasalazine in reducing pain, disease activity, radiographic progression, or improving physical function and spinal mobility in the treatment of AS. A statistically significant benefit in reducing the erythrocyte sedimentation rate and easing spinal stiffness was mentioned in the previous version. However, the effect size was very small and not clinically meaningful. More withdrawals because of side effects occurred with sulfasalazine. Further studies, with larger sample sizes, longer duration, and using validated outcome measures are needed to verify the uncertainty of sulfasalazine in AS.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 25427435
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004800.pub3