Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of iris-registration in wavefront-guided LASIK (IR+WG LASIK) versus conventional LASIK for correction of myopia accompanied with astigmatism. Methods Such databases as PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane library (Issue 2, 2012), CBM, CNKI, VIP, and WangFang Data were searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs about IR+WG LASIK versus conventional LASIK for correction of myopia accompanied with astigmatism. The retrieval time was from inception to February 2012, and the language was in both Chinese and English. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and assessed the quality of the included studies. Then the meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1 software. Results A total of 9 studies involving 3 903 eyes were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the conventional LASIK group, the IR+WG LASIK group had a higher ratio in patients with postoperative uncorrected visual acuity no less than 1.0 (RR=1.03, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.05, P=0.002), as well as in patients with best-corrected visual acuity gained over 1 line (RR=1.75, 95%CI 1.49 to 2.16, Plt;0.000 01); it was smaller in the postoperative high order aberration RMS (WMD=−0.16, 95%CI −0.21 to −0.11, Plt;0.000 01), coma-like RMS (WMD=−0.05, 95%CI −0.11 to 0.00, P=0.07), spherical-like RMS (WMD=−0.15, 95%CI −0.23 to −0.07, P=0.000 2), and residual astigmatism (WMD=0.14, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.18, Plt;0.000 01); moreover, it was lower in the incidence of postoperative glare (RR=0.27, 95%CI 0.15 to 0.50, Plt;0.000 1), and it was higher in the subjective satisfaction of patients (RR=1.08, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.13, P=0.000 3). Conclusion Compared with conventional LASIK, IR+WG LASIK can more effectively reduce astigmatism, postoperative high order aberration RMS and spherical-like RMS. It can also get visual function including uncorrected visual acuity and best-corrected visual acuity, consequently increase patient’s satisfaction. But further studies are still required for its long-term effect.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness of anterior versus posterior approaches with one-stage debridement and bone grafting for surgical treatment of spinal tuberculosis. MethodsDatabases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, Elsevier, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI and VIP were electronically searched from 2004 to 2015 to collect relevant clinical studies about the effectiveness of anterior versus posterior approaches with one-stage debridement and bone grafting for surgical treatment of spinal tuberculosis. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, and then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 11 studies involving 1 063 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: correction of Cobb angle with the posterior approach was significantly larger than that of anterior approach (MD=-2.78, 95%CI -3.73 to -1.82, P<0.000 01); the allograft fusion time of anterior approach was shorter than that of posterior approach (MD=-0.21, 95%CI -0.35 to -0.08, P=0.002). But there were no significant differences between the two groups in operation time, intraoprative blood loss, loss of Cobb angle at final follow-up and time of total hospital stay (all P values >0.05). ConclusionPosterior approach can correct the Cobb angle significantly for the spinal tuberculosis patients with kyphosis, and anterior approach has a shorter allograft fusion time, but it is not able to correct the deformity of the patient to maintain the normal sequence of the spine. For the quantity and quality limitation of the included studies, this conclusion still needs to be proved by conducting more high quality studies.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of chemo-radiotherapy combined with hyperthermia (HCRT) for rectal cancer, and to provide evidence for clinical practice. MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Library (Issue 6, 2014), PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases from inception to July 2014. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HCRT for rectal cancer were collected. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of 9 RCTs involving 663 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:Compared with the chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) group, the HCRT group were significant superior in complete response (OR=3.74, 95%CI 2.14 to 6.53), total effective rate (OR=4.23, 95%CI 2.69 to 6.66), 3-year survival rate (OR=4.48, 95%CI 1.81 to 11.06) and recurrence rate (OR=0.19, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.42). ②Compared with the radiotherapy (RT) group, the HCRT group was associated with significant improvement in complete response rate (OR=3.01, 95%CI 1.24 to 7.29). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows, HCRT is superior to CRT or RT in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.