Aim. Irrigation and debridement with an irrigation solution are essential components of the surgical management of acute and chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Nevertheless, there is a lack of agreement regarding the most effective solution to use. The aim of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature concerning the efficacy of different irrigation solutions over bacterial biofilm. Method. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus databases from inception to September 1, 2023. We combined terms related to PJI, biofilm and irrigation solutions studied in vitro. We performed a network meta-analysis to analyze which irrigation solution achieved a higher reduction of colony forming units (CFU) after specific exposure times, always with a maximum of five minutes, replicating intraoperative conditions. Effect-size was summarized with logarithmic response ratio (logRR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The rank probability for each treatment was calculated using the p-scores. Results. We screened 233 potential sources. Following deduplication, screening and full-text review, four studies with ten irrigation solutions for different duration of exposures were included, always less than five minutes, replicating intraoperative conditions. Solutions were studied over mature biofilms of most frequent bacteria grown over metal, bone cement or polyethylene surfaces. The highest effect was achieved with povidone iodine 10% during 5 minutes (logRR: −12.02; 95% CI: −14.04, −9.99). The best ranked solutions were povidone iodine 10% during five, three and one minute (respective p-scores: 0.977, 0.932, 0.887) and its combination with hydrogen peroxide for 3 minutes (p-score: 0.836). Povidone iodine 0.3% acting for 5 minutes completed the top 5 best ranked solutions in this study (p-score: 0.761). We assumed that there were no inconsistencies in our network because after examining both scenarios, with and without inconsistencies, the results were not significantly different. Conclusions. Our results show that 10% povidone-iodine is the best antiseptic solution when studied in vitro in the context of prosthetic joint infection. However, the included studies did not evaluate the possible cytotoxic effects of these solutions. This should also be taken into account before choosing the most appropriate antiseptic solution

Background. To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs with the aims of comparing relevant clinical outcomes (i.e. VAS, WOMAC total and sub-score score, Lequesne Algofunctional index, joint space width change and adverse events) between diacerein, glucosamine and placebo. Methods. Medline and Scopus databases were searched from inception to August 29th, 2014, using PubMed and Scopus search engines and included RCTs or quasi-experimental designs comparing clinical outcomes between treatments. Data were extracted from original studies. A network meta-analysis was performed by applying weight regression for continuous outcomes and a mixed-effect Poisson regression for dichotomous outcomes. Results. Thirty-one of 505 identified studies were eligible. Compared to placebo, glucosamine showed significant improvement with unstandardized mean differences (UMD) in total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), pain WOMAC, function WOMAC, and Lequesne score of −2.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], −4.14, −0.83), −0.75 (95% CI, −1.18, −0.32), −4.78 (95% CI, −5.96, −3.59) and −1.03 (95% CI, −1.34, −0.72), respectively. Diacerein clinically improves visual analog scores, function WOMAC, and stiffness WOMAC with UMD values of −2.23 (95% CI, −2.82, −1.64), −6.64 (95% CI, −10.50, −2.78) and −0.68 (95% CI, −1.20, −0.16) when compared to placebo. Conclusions. The network meta-analysis suggests that diacerein and glucosamine are equally efficacious for symptom relief in knee OA, but that the former has more side effects

Lung cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed, the leading cause of cancer-related deaths, and bone metastases occurs in 20–40% of lung cancer patients. They often present symptomatically with pain or skeletal related events (SREs), which are independently associated with decreased survival. Bone modifying agents (BMAs) such as Denosumab or bisphosphonates are routinely used, however no specific guidelines exist from the National Comprehensive Cancer Center or the European Society of Medical Oncologists. Perhaps preventing the formation of guidelines is the lack of a high-quality quantitative synthesis of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data to determine the optimal treatment for the patient important outcomes of 1) Overall survival (OS), 2) Time to SRE, 3) SRE incidence, and 4) Pain Resolution. The objective of this study was to perform the first systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the best BMA for treatment of metastatic lung cancer to bone. We conducted our study in accordance to the PRISMA protocol. We performed a librarian assisted search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library and Chinese databases including CNKI and Wanfang Data. We included studies that are RCTs reporting outcomes specifically for lung cancer patients treated with a bisphosphonate or Denosumab. Screening, data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE were performed in duplicate. The NMA was performed using a Bayesian probability model with R. Results are reported as relative risks, odds ratios or mean differences, and the I2 value is reported for heterogeneity. We assessed all included articles for risk of bias and applied the novel GRADE framework for NMAs to rate the quality of evidence supporting each outcome. We included 132 RCTs comprising 11,161 patients with skeletal metastases from lung cancer. For OS, denosumab was ranked above zoledronic acid (ZA) and estimated to confer an average of 3.7 months (95%CI: −0.5 – 7.6) increased survival compared to untreated patients. For time to SRE, denosumab was ranked first with an average of 9.1 additional SRE-free months (95%CI: 4.0 – 14.0) compared to untreated patients, while ZA conferred an additional 4.8 SRE-free months (2.4 – 7.0). Patients treated with the combination of Ibandronate and systemic therapy were 2.3 times (95%CI: 1.7 – 3.2) more likely to obtain successful pain resolution, compared to untreated. Meta-regression showed no effect of heterogeneity length of follow-up or pain scales on the observed treatment effects. Heterogeneity in the network was considered moderate for overall survival and time to SRE, mild for SRE incidence, and low for pain resolution. While a generally high risk of bias was observed across studies, whether they were from Western or Chinese databases. The overall GRADE for the evidence underlying our results is High for Pain control and SRE incidence, and Moderate for OS and time to SRE. This study represents the most comprehensive synthesis of the best available evidence guiding pharmacological treatment of bone metastases from lung cancer. Denosumab is ranked above ZA for both overall survival and time to SRE, but both treatments are superior to no treatment. ZA was first among all bisphosphonates assessed for odds of reducing SRE incidence, while the combination of Ibandronate and radionuclide therapy was most effective at significantly reducing pain from metastases. Clinicians and policy makers may use this synthesis of all available RCT data as support for the use of a BMA in MBD for lung cancer