Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 12, Issue 7 | Pages 423 - 432
6 Jul 2023
Xie H Wang N He H Yang Z Wu J Yang T Wang Y

Aims. Previous studies have suggested that selenium as a trace element is involved in bone health, but findings related to the specific effect of selenium on bone health remain inconclusive. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis by including all the relevant studies to elucidate the association between selenium status (dietary intake or serum selenium) and bone health indicators (bone mineral density (BMD), osteoporosis (OP), or fracture). Methods. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to retrieve relevant articles published before 15 November 2022. Studies focusing on the correlation between selenium and BMD, OP, or fracture were included. Effect sizes included regression coefficient (β), weighted mean difference (WMD), and odds ratio (OR). According to heterogeneity, the fixed-effect or random-effect model was used to assess the association between selenium and bone health. Results. From 748 non-duplicate publications, 19 studies were included. We found a significantly positive association between dietary selenium intake (β = 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.07, p = 0.029) as well as serum selenium (β = 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.26, p = 0.046) and BMD. Consistently, those with higher selenium intake had a lower risk of OP (OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.72, p = 0.001), and patients with OP had a significantly lower level of serum selenium than healthy controls (WMD = -2.01, 95% CI -3.91 to -0.12, p = 0.037). High dietary selenium intake was associated with a lower risk of hip fracture (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, p < 0.001). Conclusion. Selenium was positively associated with BMD and inversely associated with OP; dietary selenium intake was negatively associated with hip fracture. The causality and therapeutic effect of selenium on OP needs to be investigated in future studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(7):423–432


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 10, Issue 12 | Pages 807 - 819
1 Dec 2021
Wong RMY Wong PY Liu C Chung YL Wong KC Tso CY Chow SK Cheung W Yung PS Chui CS Law SW

Aims. The use of 3D printing has become increasingly popular and has been widely used in orthopaedic surgery. There has been a trend towards an increasing number of publications in this field, but existing literature incorporates limited high-quality studies, and there is a lack of reports on outcomes. The aim of this study was to perform a scoping review with Level I evidence on the application and effectiveness of 3D printing. Methods. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The keywords used for the search criteria were ((3d print*) OR (rapid prototyp*) OR (additive manufactur*)) AND (orthopaedic). The inclusion criteria were: 1) use of 3D printing in orthopaedics, 2) randomized controlled trials, and 3) studies with participants/patients. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane Collaboration Tool and PEDro Score. Pooled analysis was performed. Results. Overall, 21 studies were included in our study with a pooled total of 932 participants. Pooled analysis showed that operating time (p < 0.001), blood loss (p < 0.001), fluoroscopy times (p < 0.001), bone union time (p < 0.001), pain (p = 0.040), accuracy (p < 0.001), and functional scores (p < 0.001) were significantly improved with 3D printing compared to the control group. There were no significant differences in complications. Conclusion. 3D printing is a rapidly developing field in orthopaedics. Our findings show that 3D printing is advantageous in terms of operating time, blood loss, fluoroscopy times, bone union time, pain, accuracy, and function. The use of 3D printing did not increase the risk of complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(12):807–819


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 8, Issue 3 | Pages 107 - 117
1 Mar 2019
Lim ZXH Rai B Tan TC Ramruttun AK Hui JH Nurcombe V Teoh SH Cool SM

Objectives

Long bone defects often require surgical intervention for functional restoration. The ‘gold standard’ treatment is autologous bone graft (ABG), usually from the patient’s iliac crest. However, autograft is plagued by complications including limited supply, donor site morbidity, and the need for an additional surgery. Thus, alternative therapies are being actively investigated. Autologous bone marrow (BM) is considered as a candidate due to the presence of both endogenous reparative cells and growth factors. We aimed to compare the therapeutic potentials of autologous bone marrow aspirate (BMA) and ABG, which has not previously been done.

Methods

We compared the efficacy of coagulated autologous BMA and ABG for the repair of ulnar defects in New Zealand White rabbits. Segmental defects (14 mm) were filled with autologous clotted BM or morcellized autograft, and healing was assessed four and 12 weeks postoperatively. Harvested ulnas were subjected to radiological, micro-CT, histological, and mechanical analyses.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 7, Issue 6 | Pages 406 - 413
1 Jun 2018
Shabestari M Kise NJ Landin MA Sesseng S Hellund JC Reseland JE Eriksen EF Haugen IK

Objectives

Little is known about tissue changes underlying bone marrow lesions (BMLs) in non-weight-bearing joints with osteoarthritis (OA). Our aim was to characterize BMLs in OA of the hand using dynamic histomorphometry. We therefore quantified bone turnover and angiogenesis in subchondral bone at the base of the thumb, and compared the findings with control bone from hip OA.

Methods

Patients with OA at the base of the thumb, or the hip, underwent preoperative MRI to assess BMLs, and tetracycline labelling to determine bone turnover. Three groups were compared: trapezium bones removed by trapeziectomy from patients with thumb base OA (n = 20); femoral heads with (n = 24); and those without (n = 9) BMLs obtained from patients with hip OA who underwent total hip arthroplasty.