STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, the electronic medical record of 19064 women who delivered from January 2018-September 2022 in a university hospital in Malaysia were individually searched to identify cases of IOLAC. Preselected data points on characteristics and the outcome of mode of delivery were retrieved. Bivariate analysis was performed to identify predictor characteristics for the dichotomous outcomes of vaginal delivery vs unplanned cesarean delivery. Variables with crude p
OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to answer the following research question: 'Does pulpotomy (partial or full) (I) result in better patient and clinical reported outcomes (O), compared with RCT (C) in permanent teeth with pulpitis characterized by spontaneous pain (P) evaluated at various time intervals?' (T).
METHODS: Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The literature search was conducted in the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. English language clinical trials comparing the patient and clinical reported outcomes between RCT and pulpotomy were included. The meta-analysis was performed on a fixed-effect model and the quality of evidence assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS: Two randomized clinical trials were included. Amongst two trials, one has published four reports at different time points involving the same cohorts. The meta-analysis revealed no difference in postoperative pain (Day 7) between RCT and pulpotomy (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.63-1.55, I2 = 0%) and quality of evidence was graded as 'High'. Clinical success was high at year 1, 98% for both interventions, however, decreased over time to 78.1% (pulpotomy) and 75.3% (RCT) at 5 years.
DISCUSSION: Pulpotomy is a definitive treatment modality that is as effective as RCT. This could have a significant impact on treatment of such patients affording the advantages of retaining a vital pulp and preventing the need for RCT.
CONCLUSION: This review could only include two trials, hence there is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions. The clinical data accumulated so far suggests no difference in pain between RCT and pulpotomy at Day 7 postoperatively and a single randomized control trial suggests that the clinical success rate for both treatment modalities is similar long term. There is a need for more well-designed trials by different research groups to develop a stronger evidence base in this area.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database (CRD42021259744).
METHODS: This was a retrospective review of 270 consecutive patients (397 knees) who underwent primary TKA with an AR or PR system. Selection of implant size, mediolateral and anteroposterior alignment of the femoral component, as well as gaps were compared between groups.
RESULTS: In the AR group, more patients had femoral components which were upsized or downsized compared to those in the PR group (29.5% vs 12.0% respectively) and in patients who underwent bilateral TKA, 49.4% of those in the AR group had femur component size asymmetry. The AR group had better medio-lateral (ML) fit over the distal cutting surface area, smaller change in anterior offset but higher incidence of anterior notching when compared to the PR group. Posterior condylar offset (PCO) was restored in both groups and gap differences in flexion-extension and ML were comparable. There was also no difference in clinical scores and ROM between groups at 2-years follow-up.
CONCLUSION: In this study, conventional implications related to referencing system were not observed. In practice, AR systems can restore PCO while PR systems do not result in increased anterior notching or anterior overstuffing. Differences observed in this study are most likely related to implant design specifics and surgical technique.