ObjectiveTo evaluate the application and effectiveness of bilateral total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in the treatment of severe inflammatory arthropathies. MethodsBetween September 2008 and September 2015, 31 patients with severe inflammatory arthropathies were treated with bilateral total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty. Of 31 cases, 22 were male and 9 were female with an average age of 30 years (range, 20 to 41 years); there were 15 cases of rheumatoid arthritis and 16 cases of ankylosing spondylitis with an average onset age of 14 years (range, 5-28 years); all 4 ankylosed joints were observed in 11 cases, 3 ankylosed joints in 2 cases, 2 ankylosed joints in 6 cases, 1 ankylosed joint in 1 case, and no ankylosed joint in 11 cases. Before operation, the hip range of motion (ROM) value was (17.82±28.18)°, and the knee ROM value score was (26.45±30.18)°; the hip Harris score was 29.64±11.58, and the hospital for special surgery (HSS) score was 27.07±11.04. The patients were grouped and compared in accordance with etiology and ankylosed joint. ResultsOne-stage arthroplasty was performed in 1 case, two-stage arthroplasty in 22 cases, three-stage arthroplasty in 7 cases, and four-stage arthroplasty in 1 case. The total operation time was 325-776 minutes; the total blood loss was 900-3 900 mL; the total transfusion volume was 2 220-8 070 mL; and the total hospitalization time was 21-65 days. The patients were followed up 12-94 months (mean, 51 months). The hip and knee ROM values, Harris score and HSS score at last follow-up were significantly improved when compared with preoperative ones (P < 0.05). The subjective satisfaction degree was good in 16 cases, moderate in 10 cases, and poor in 5 cases. Periprosthetic infection occurred in 2 cases (3 knees), joint stiffness in 3 cases (6 knees), joint instability in 1 case (1 knee), leg length discrepancy of > 2 cm in 2 cases, and flexion deformity of 10° in 1 case (1 knee). The hip and knee ROM values, Harris score and HSS score showed no significant difference between patients with ankylosing spondylitis and patients rheumatoid arthritis at last follow-up (P > 0.05). The hip and knee ROM values of the patients with ankylosed joint were significantly lower than those of patients with no ankylosed joint (P < 0.05); the Harris score and HSS score of the patients with ankylosed joint were lower than those of patients with no ankylosed joint, but no significant difference was found (P > 0.05). ConclusionA combination of bilateral hip and knee arthroplasty is an efficient treatment for severe lower extremities deformity, arthralgia and poor quality of life caused by inflammatory arthropathies. However, the postoperative periprosthetic infection and stiffness of knee are important complications influencing the effectiveness of operation.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis failing to respond to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Methods The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang (from the date of their establishments to June 2010) were searched, and journals of relevant fields were retrieved to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The data were analyzed by using RevMan 5.0 software. Results Four RCTs were included, all of which were from abroad and with good methodological quality. The baseline data of each trial were comparable. Meta-analyses showed that there was a significant difference between the adalimumab and the placebo in terms of ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, tender joint count, swollen joint count, patient assessment of pain, patient global assessment of disease activity, doctor global assessment of disease activity, and disability index of the HAQ. There was no difference between the adalimumab and the placebo in terms of serious adverse events, intractable adverse events and serious infection. Conclusion Adalimumab can treat rheumatoid arthritis failing to respond to DMARDs, but clinically the doctor should balance the benefit and the risk of the adalimumab.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Celecoxib and Naproxen for treating osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.Methods Such databases as EMbase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), and Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD) were searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Celecoxib and Naproxen for treating osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the included studies and extracted the data. The Review Manager (version 5.0) software was used to analyze the data. Results Four RCTs involving 2 931 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses were as follows: a) There were significant differences in the dose of Celecoxib and Naproxen for treating rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis; b) There was no significant difference in gastrointestinal reaction between the Celecoxib group and the placebo group (RR=1.29, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.79); c) The were significant differences in gastrointestinal reaction between the Celecoxib group and the Naproxen group (RR=0.78, 95%CI 0.64 to 0.95); d) There were significant differences in inducing the severity of Stomach and Duodenum Endoscopy Score between the Celecoxib group and the Naproxen group when treating rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis (RR=1.29, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.79). As the Intention-To-Treat (ITT) analysis showed, there were significant differences in inducing the severity of gastrointestinal reaction between the Celecoxib group and the Naproxen group when treating rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis (RR=0.84, 95%CI 0.77 to 0.92). Conclusion Compared with Naproxen, there are significant differences in efficacy for treating rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis with Celecoxib in different doses. The Celecoxib has no significant difference in gastrointestinal reaction compared with the placebo group. The Celecoxib group has fewer gastrointestinal side-effects as compared with the Naproxen group, so it can be used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis in clinic. The results still need to be confirmed by high-quality RCTs.
Objectives To systematically review the efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP) plus methotrexate (MTX) for active rheumatoid arthritis. Methods The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on CZP plus MTX vs. MTX plus placebo for active rheumatoid arthritis from inception to May, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, data were analyzed by using Stata 11.0 software. Results Seven RCTs were included. The results of meta-analysis showed the CZP plus MTX group was superior to MTX plus placebo group in ACR20 (CZP400 mg: RR=2.86, 95%CI 1.70 to 4.79, P<0.001; CZP200 mg: RR=3.76, 95%CI 2.59, 5.46, P<0.001), ACR50 (CZP400 mg: RR=3.91, 95%CI 2.10 to 7.27, P<0.001; CZP200 mg: RR=4.86, 95%CI 3.20 to 7.39, P<0.001), and ACR70 (CZP400 mg: RR=5.65, 95%CI 1.99 to 16.06, P=0.001; CZP200 mg: RR=10.08, 95%CI 5.11 to 19.89, P<0.001). The CZP plus MTX group was also superior to MTX plus placebo group in swollen joint counts (SMD=–12.72, 95%CI –15.39 to –10.06,P<0.001), tender joint counts (SMD=–11.54, 95%CI –13.97 to –9.11,P<0.001), doctor's global assessment of disease activity (SMD=–11.78, 95%CI –13.81 to –9.75,P<0.001), patient's global assessment of disease activity (SMD=–9.62, 95%CI –11.09 to –8.15,P<0.001), and patient's assessment of pain (SMD=–9.10, 95%CI –10.91 to –7.30,P<0.001) and HAQ (SMD=–7.74, 95%CI –8.99, –6.49,P<0.001), respectively. However, the incidence of adverse events in CZP plus MTX group was higher than that in MTX plus placebo group. Conclusions CZP plus MTX is superior to MTX plus placebo for treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis but with higher adverse events. Due to limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusions are still needed to be verified by more high-quality studies.
Objective To evaluate the surgical treatment and effectiveness of rheumatoid forefoot reconstruction with arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint and arthroplasty of lesser metatarsal heads. Methods Between January 2007 and August 2009, 7 patients with rheumatoid forefoot were treated by reconstruction with arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint and arthroplasty of lesser metatarsal heads. They were all females with an average age of 62 years (range, 56-71 years) and with an average disease duration of 16 years (range, 5-30 years). All patients manifested hallux valgus, hammer toe or mallet toe of 2-5 toes, 5 feet complicated by subluxation of the second metatarsophalangeal joint. The improved American Orthopaedic Foot amp; Ankle Society (AOFAS) score was 36.9 ± 6.4. The hallux valgus angle was (46 ± 5)°, and the intermetarsal angle was (12 ± 2)° by measuring the load bearing X-ray films preoperatively. Results All incisions healed by first intention after operation. The X-ray films showed bone fusion of the first metatarsophalangeal joint at 3-4 months after operation. Seven patients were followed up 2.9 years on average (range, 2-4 years), gait was improved and pain was rel ieved. The hallux valgus angle decreased to (17 ± 4)° and the intermetarsal angle was (11 ± 2)° at 3 months postoperatively, showing significant differences when compared with preoperative values (P lt; 0.05). The improved AOFAS score was 85.3 ± 5.1 at 2 years postoperatively, showing significant difference when compared with preoperative score (t=4.501, P=0.001). One patient had recurrent metatarsalgia at 4 years after operation. Conclusion Arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint and arthroplasty of lesser metatarsal heads for rheumatoid forefoot reconstruction can correct hallux valgus, remodel the bearing surface of the forefoot, and rel ieve pain, so it can be considered as a procedure that provides improvement in the cl inical outcome.
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most common chronic inflammatory diseases. It mainly involves joints, as well as extra-articular organs. The extra-articular manifestations (EAM) are more common in patients with severe active disease, and the mortality of RA patients with EAM is 2.5 times of RA patients without EAM. Renal damage is rare in EAM, which mainly includes renal damage associated with RA itself, renal amyloidosis, and drug-induced secondary renal damage. In recent years, researches on RA renal damage have gradually increased, and mainly focused on therapy and prognosis. The recent research progress of RA renal damage are summarized in this review.
【摘要】随着超声心动图的普及与发展,无症状性类风湿性关节炎心脏瓣膜改变的检出率逐渐增多。临床应重视类风湿性关节炎心脏瓣膜损害以及超声心动图在这类疾病中的诊断价值,以期改善患者预后。【Abstract】 Objective More and more cardiac valve changes are detected in asymptomatic patients with rheumatoid arthritis by echocardiography. It is essential to pay attention to the clinical features of heart valves damage and the diagnostic value of echocardiography on that in order to improve the prognosis of patients.
Objective To evaluate the diagnostic value of antikeratin antibody (AKA) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Systematic and comprehensive literature was searched in PubMed (1966 to June 2010), The Cochrane Library (Issue 6, 2010), CBM (1978 to June 2010), CNKI (1994 to June 2010), VIP (1989 to June 2010), and CMA Digital Periodicals (1997 to June 2010). The diagnosis studies of antikeratin antibody for rheumatoid arthritis were included. The quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) items were used to assess the quality of the included studies. The Meta-Disc (version 1.4) software was used to analyze the data. Results A total of 69 trials involving 14 890 participants were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that compared with the RA classification criteria revised by American Rheumatism Association (ARA), the summary sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, OR value, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve of antikeratin antibody were 0.41 (0.39, 0.42), 0.94 (0.94, 0.95), 9.52 (7.21, 12.57), 0.63 (0.60, 0.66), 15.24 (11.62, 19.98), and 0.613 6, respectively. Conclusion Antikeratin antibody might be one of the most effective diagnoses for rheumatoid arthritis. The clinicians should combine other autoantibodies with AKA to diagnose rheumatoid arthritis.