ObjectiveTo explore the mechanism of Xianfang Huomingyin （XFHMY） in the treatment of type Ⅲ prostatitis （CP/CPPS） through network pharmacology， molecular docking， and animal experiments. MethodsThe traditional Chinese Medicine Systems Pharmacology Database and Analysis Platform （TCMSP） and the Swiss Target Prediction database were used to screen and sort out the active ingredients and corresponding targets of XFHMY. The potential therapeutic targets of CP/CPPS were collected from online databases， such as the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man （OMIM）， GeneCards， and DisGeNET. The potential core targets of XFHMY for treating CP/CPPS were further screened by constructing a protein-protein interaction （PPI） network and performing topological analysis. Meanwhile， the DAVID database was chosen to perform enrichment analysis on the intersection targets. On this basis， the AutoDock software was used for molecular docking， and the data was subsequently imported into the GraphPad Prism 8 software to generate a heat map. SD rats were divided into seven groups： A blank group， a sham operation group， a model group， low-， medium-， and high-dose XFHMY groups （3.645， 7.29， 14.58 g·kg^-1）， and a tamsulosin hydrochloride group （0.018 mg·kg^-1）. Hematoxylin-eosin （HE） staining was used to evaluate the pathological changes in prostate tissue. The inflammatory factor indicators of rats in each group were detected via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay （ELISA）. Real-time fluorescence quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction （Real-time PCR） and Western blot were used to evaluate the mRNA and protein expression levels of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase （PI3K）， protein kinase B （Akt）， and nuclear transcription factor-κB （NF-κB） p65 in prostate tissue. ResultsThe HE staining showed no significant signs of inflammatory cell infiltration in the prostate of the sham operation group compared to the blank group， while the model group had significantly inflammatory cell infiltration. The ELISA results showed that compared to the blank group， TNF-α， IL-1β， and COX-2 in the sham operation group had no significant differences. However， they were significantly higher in the model group （P<0.01）， indicating successful CP/CPPS modeling in rats. Compared with the model group， the low-，medium-and high-dose XFHMY group and the tamsulosin hydrochloride group showed significant decreases in TNF-α， IL-1β， and COX-2 （P<0.05，P<0.01）. The Real-time PCR analysis revealed that compared to the model group， the low-dose XFHMY group had reduced Akt and NF-κB p65 mRNA expression（P<0.05，P<0.01）. In the medium-and high-dose XFHMY group and tamsulosin hydrochloride group， PI3K， Akt， and NF-κB p65 mRNA levels decreased significantly（P<0.05，P<0.01）. Western blot analysis showed that compared to the model group， the low-dose XFHMY group had lower p-NF-κB p65/NF-κB p65 （P<0.05）. The medium- and high-dose XFHMY group and the tamsulosin hydrochloride group showed significant decreases in p-PI3K/PI3K， p-Akt-ser473/Akt， p-Akt-thr308/Akt， and p-NF-κB p65/NF-κB p65 （P<0.01）. ConclusionXFHMY may exert therapeutic efficacy on CP/CPPS by inhibiting the PI3K/Akt/NF-κB signaling pathway and reducing inflammatory responses. Additionally， NF-κB activation may be related to the activation of ser473 and thr308 sites.

ObjectiveTo observe the effects of Yangjing Zhongyutang （YJZYT） on mitochondrial biogenesis and oxidative stress damage mediated by the silent information regulator 1 （SIRT1）/peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator-1alpha （PGC-1α） signaling pathway in cyclophosphamide （CTX）-induced rats with diminished ovarian reserve （DOR）， and to explore its mechanism in improving ovarian reserve function and follicular development. MethodsForty-two 8-week-old female SD rats with normal estrous cycles were randomly divided into a blank control group （n=7） and a model group （n=35）. Rats in the model group received a single intraperitoneal injection of CTX （90 mg·kg^-1） to establish the DOR model. After modeling， estrous cycles were monitored for 7 consecutive days， and model success was confirmed based on criteria for estrous cycle disruption. After successful modeling， rats were divided into groups for intervention： estradiol valerate group （0.09 mg·kg^-1）， and YJZYT high-， medium-， and low-dose groups （19.98， 9.99， 5.00 g·kg^-1）. The blank control group and model group were given an equal volume of distilled water by gavage. All groups received daily gavage once for 4 consecutive weeks. The general state， body weight， and ovarian wet weight of rats were observed and recorded， and the ovarian organ index was calculated. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay （ELISA） was used to measure serum levels of follicle-stimulating hormone （FSH）， luteinizing hormone （LH）， estradiol （E₂）， anti-Müllerian hormone （AMH）， superoxide dismutase （SOD）， and glutathione peroxidase （GSH-Px）. Hematoxylin-eosin （HE） staining was performed to observe ovarian histomorphological changes and follicular development status. Immunofluorescence was used to detect reactive oxygen species （ROS） expression levels. Colorimetric assays were employed to measure adenosine triphosphate （ATP） and malondialdehyde （MDA） content in ovarian tissues. Quantitative Real-time polymerase chain reaction （Real-time PCR） was used to detect mitochondrial DNA （mtDNA） copy number and the mRNA expression levels of key genes including SIRT1， PGC-1α， nuclear respiratory factor 1 （NRF1）， and mitochondrial transcription factor A （TFAM）. Western blot was performed to detect the protein expression levels of SIRT1， PGC-1α， NRF1， and TFAM. ResultsCompared with the blank group， rats in the model group exhibited disrupted estrous cycles， obviously reduced body weight， and decreased ovarian index （P<0.05）. Ovarian histopathology revealed cortical thinning， loose structure， and a significant reduction in both primordial and growing follicles （P<0.01）. Serum FSH and LH levels were significantly elevated （P<0.01）， while E₂ and AMH levels were obviously reduced （P<0.05， P<0.01）. ATP content and mtDNA copy number decreased in ovarian tissue （P<0.01）， ROS expression increased， MDA levels rose， while SOD and GSH-Px activities obviously decreased （P<0.05， P<0.01）， mRNA and protein expression levels of SIRT1， PGC-1α， NRF1， and TFAM were obviously downregulated （P<0.05， P<0.01）. After treatment， compared with the model group， body weight and ovarian index obviously recovered in rats administered various doses of YJZYT （P<0.05）， serum E₂ and AMH levels increased， while FSH and LH levels obviously decreased （P<0.05， P<0.01）， ovarian tissue ATP content and mtDNA copy number were up-regulated， ROS and MDA levels decreased， and antioxidant enzymes SOD and GSH-Px activity obviously increased （P<0.05， P<0.01）， Gene and protein expression levels related to the SIRT1/PGC-1α /NRF1/TFAM signaling pathway were obviously up-regulated compared to the model group （P<0.05， P<0.01）， HE staining revealed that ovarian structure gradually recovered to integrity in all treatment groups， with a obviously increase in the number of primordial and growing follicles （P<0.05， P<0.01）. Granulosa cells were neatly arranged， indicating marked improvement in ovarian function. ConclusionYJZYT may improve ovarian function and follicular development in rats with diminished ovarian reserve by activating the SIRT1/PGC-1α signaling pathway， promoting mitochondrial biogenesis， enhancing mitochondrial function， and alleviating oxidative stress damage.

One of its primary surgical treatments of tricuspid regurgitation is tricuspid valve biological valve replacement. Catheter tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation is a novel interventional alternative for biological valve failure. The non-invasive lung fluid measuring device remote dielectric sensing (ReDSTM) has been increasingly incorporated into clinical practice as a means of monitoring chronic heart failure in recent years. This report describes the process and outcomes of the first instance of perioperative lung fluid volume evaluation following transcatheter tricuspid valve implantation utilizing ReDSTM technology. The patient has a short-term, substantial increase in postoperative lung fluid volume as compared to baseline.

Objective:To compare the impacts of external fixation of different durations on rehabilitation outcomes after open repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture.Methods:A prospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of patients with unilateral acute closed Achilles tendon rupture admitted to Peking University Third Hospital from August 2020 to August 2023. Patients were divided into Group A ( n=96), Group B ( n=347), Group C ( n=346), and Group D ( n=105) based on different postoperative immobilization durations (0, 2, 4 and 6 weeks, respectively). After all the patients received identical open repair procedure, Group A was rehabilitated immediately but the other groups were rehabilitated with the same protocol after removal of the external fixation. Four groups were compared in terms of recovery time of one-leg heel-rise height (OHRH), recovery time of light exercise (LE) in brisk walking and jogging and recovery time of range of motion (ROM). Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were also compared at 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks postoperatively. Achilles tendon total rupture score (ATRS) and American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scores were evaluated at 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 weeks postoperatively. Complications were recorded. Results:A total of 894 patients including 869 males and 25 females were included, aged 18-60 years [(35.0±6.3)years]. All the patients were followed up for 14-25 months [(19.0±3.0)months]. The recovery time of OHRH in Group A and B was 12.0(12.0, 12.0)weeks and 12.0(10.0, 12.0)weeks, shorter than those in Group C [14.0(14.0, 16.0)weeks] and D [14.0(14.0, 14.0)weeks] ( P<0.05), with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05) and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). The recovery time of LE in Group A and B was 18.0(18.0, 18.0)weeks and 18.0(16.0, 18.0)weeks, shorter than those in Group C [20.0(20.0, 20.0)weeks] and D [20.0(20.0, 20.0)weeks] ( P<0.05), with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05) and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). The recovery time of ROM in Group A and B was 6.0(6.0, 6.0)weeks and 6.0(6.0, 6.0)weeks, shorter than those in Group C [8.0(8.0, 10.0)weeks] and D [10.0(10.0, 10.0)weeks)] ( P<0.05), with no significant difference between Group A and B, and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). At 2 weeks postoperatively, the VAS scores were 2.0(1.0, 2.0)points, 2.0(1.0, 2.0)points, and 2.0(1.5, 2.0)points in Group B, C and D, lower than 5.0(5.0, 5.0)points in Group A ( P<0.05), with no significant difference among Group B, C, and D ( P>0.05). At 4 weeks postoperatively, the VAS scores were 1.0(0, 1.0)points, 1.0(0, 1.0)points, and 1.0(0.5, 1.0)points in Group B, C and D, lower than 2.0(1.0, 2.0)points in Group A ( P<0.05), with no significant difference among Group B, C, and D ( P>0.05). At 6 weeks postoperatively, the VAS score was 0(0, 0)points in all the 4 groups, with no significant difference among them ( P>0.05). At 8 weeks postoperatively, the VAS score was 0(0, 0)points, with lower scores in Group A and B than those in Group C and D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). At 6 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS scores were 52.0(52.0, 53.8)points and 52.0(50.0, 53.0)points in Group A and B, higher than 41.0(38.0, 43.0)points and 19.0(18.0, 20.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05). At 8 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS scores were 66.0(66.0, 68.0)points in Group A, higher than 63.0(62.0, 64.0)points, 52.0(50.0, 53.0)points, and 39.0(37.0, 40.0)points in Group B, C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group B than those in Group C and D ( P<0.05) and a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05). At 10 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS score was 75.0(74.0, 76.0)points in Group B, higher than 69.0(69.0, 70.0)points, 72.0(66.0, 74.0)points, and 62.0(58.5, 63.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 12 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS score was 84.0(82.0, 85.0)points in Group B, higher than 75.0(75.0, 77.0)points, 79.0(72.0, 81.0)points, and 72.0(71.0, 73.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 14 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS score was 87.0(86.0, 87.0)points in Group B, higher than 82.0(82.0, 84.0)points, 83.0(80.0, 85.0)points, and 79.0(77.5, 80.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 16 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS scores were 87.0(87.0, 88.0)points and 88.0(87.0, 88.0)points in Group A and B, higher than 86.0(85.0, 87.0)points and 84.0(83.0, 85.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05). At 6 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot scores were 94.0(94.0, 95.0)points and 95.0(94.0, 96.0)points in Group A and B, higher than 85.0(83.0, 86.0)points and 74.0(72.0, 75.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05). At 8 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot scores were 100.0(99.0, 100.0)points in Group B, higher than 94.0(94.0, 95.0)points, 92.0(90.0, 93.0)points, and 83.0(82.0, 84.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group A than those in Group C and D ( P<0.05) and a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05). At 10 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score was 100.0(100.0, 100.0)points in Group B, higher than 98.0(98.0, 98.0)points, 98.0(96.8, 99.0)points, and 96.0(95.0, 97.0)points in Group A, C and D, with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 12 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score was 100.0(100.0, 100.0)points in both Group A and B, with no significant difference between them ( P>0.05), which was higher than 100.0(98.0, 100.0)points and 99.0(98.0, 99.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05). At 14 and 16 weeks postoperatively, AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score was 100.0(100.0, 100.0)points, with no significant difference among all the groups ( P>0.05). Superficial wound infection occurred in 12 patients [5.2%(5/96) in Group A, 0.6%(2/347) in Group B, 0.6%(2/346) in Group C and 2.9%(3/105) in Group D] ( P<0.01) while rerupture occurred in 16 [9.4%(9/96) in Group A, 1.2% (4/347) in Group B, 0.9%(3/105) in Group C, and 0 patient in Group D] ( P<0.01). Conclusion:For patients with unilateral acute Achilles tendon rupture, two weeks of postoperative external fixation after open repair can shorten the time of returning sports, alleviate pain, and promote functional recovery, without increasing the risk of complications.

Objective To explore the relationship between pain and recurrent falls in the elderly with self-care ability. Methods Based on data from the 4th (2018) and 5th (2020) of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), a binary logistic regression model was used to analyze the association between pain and recurrent falls in the elderly. Results Among the 1219 elderly people, the average age was (69.6 ± 7.0) years old, with 407 males (33.39%) and 812 females (66.61%). 2) The risk of falling again with mild, moderate, and severe pain was 32.83%, 43.98% and 41.63%, respectively; The risk of falling again was 28.25%, 38.48% and 45.99% for pain sites ≤2, 3-5 and ≥6, respectively. 3) Regression analysis showed that the risk of falling again in the elderly with moderate pain was 1.38 times higher than that with mild pain (OR: 1.38, 95%CI: 1.05-1.81). Compared with those with less than 2 pain sites, the risk of falling again was increased by 50% (OR: 1.50, 95%CI: 1.07-2.09) and 76% (OR: 1.76, 95%CI: 1.28-2.42) in those with 3 to 5 pain sites and ≥6 pain sites, respectively. In women, the risk of falling again was 1.99 times higher in those with ≥6 pain sites than in those with ≤2 pain sites (OR: 1.99, 95%CI: 1.32-3.00). Conclusion The pain level and the risk of falling again in the elderly are in an inverted U-shaped distribution, and the number of pain sites is positively correlated with the risk of falling again in the elderly. Headache, shoulder pain, back pain, leg pain and ankle pain are all related to the risk of falling again in the elderly. It is recommended to manage pain reasonably to reduce the risk of recurrent falling in the elderly.

Objective:To compare the impacts of external fixation of different durations on rehabilitation outcomes after open repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture.Methods:A prospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of patients with unilateral acute closed Achilles tendon rupture admitted to Peking University Third Hospital from August 2020 to August 2023. Patients were divided into Group A ( n=96), Group B ( n=347), Group C ( n=346), and Group D ( n=105) based on different postoperative immobilization durations (0, 2, 4 and 6 weeks, respectively). After all the patients received identical open repair procedure, Group A was rehabilitated immediately but the other groups were rehabilitated with the same protocol after removal of the external fixation. Four groups were compared in terms of recovery time of one-leg heel-rise height (OHRH), recovery time of light exercise (LE) in brisk walking and jogging and recovery time of range of motion (ROM). Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were also compared at 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks postoperatively. Achilles tendon total rupture score (ATRS) and American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scores were evaluated at 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 weeks postoperatively. Complications were recorded. Results:A total of 894 patients including 869 males and 25 females were included, aged 18-60 years [(35.0±6.3)years]. All the patients were followed up for 14-25 months [(19.0±3.0)months]. The recovery time of OHRH in Group A and B was 12.0(12.0, 12.0)weeks and 12.0(10.0, 12.0)weeks, shorter than those in Group C [14.0(14.0, 16.0)weeks] and D [14.0(14.0, 14.0)weeks] ( P<0.05), with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05) and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). The recovery time of LE in Group A and B was 18.0(18.0, 18.0)weeks and 18.0(16.0, 18.0)weeks, shorter than those in Group C [20.0(20.0, 20.0)weeks] and D [20.0(20.0, 20.0)weeks] ( P<0.05), with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05) and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). The recovery time of ROM in Group A and B was 6.0(6.0, 6.0)weeks and 6.0(6.0, 6.0)weeks, shorter than those in Group C [8.0(8.0, 10.0)weeks] and D [10.0(10.0, 10.0)weeks)] ( P<0.05), with no significant difference between Group A and B, and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). At 2 weeks postoperatively, the VAS scores were 2.0(1.0, 2.0)points, 2.0(1.0, 2.0)points, and 2.0(1.5, 2.0)points in Group B, C and D, lower than 5.0(5.0, 5.0)points in Group A ( P<0.05), with no significant difference among Group B, C, and D ( P>0.05). At 4 weeks postoperatively, the VAS scores were 1.0(0, 1.0)points, 1.0(0, 1.0)points, and 1.0(0.5, 1.0)points in Group B, C and D, lower than 2.0(1.0, 2.0)points in Group A ( P<0.05), with no significant difference among Group B, C, and D ( P>0.05). At 6 weeks postoperatively, the VAS score was 0(0, 0)points in all the 4 groups, with no significant difference among them ( P>0.05). At 8 weeks postoperatively, the VAS score was 0(0, 0)points, with lower scores in Group A and B than those in Group C and D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B and between Group C and D ( P>0.05). At 6 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS scores were 52.0(52.0, 53.8)points and 52.0(50.0, 53.0)points in Group A and B, higher than 41.0(38.0, 43.0)points and 19.0(18.0, 20.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05). At 8 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS scores were 66.0(66.0, 68.0)points in Group A, higher than 63.0(62.0, 64.0)points, 52.0(50.0, 53.0)points, and 39.0(37.0, 40.0)points in Group B, C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group B than those in Group C and D ( P<0.05) and a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05). At 10 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS score was 75.0(74.0, 76.0)points in Group B, higher than 69.0(69.0, 70.0)points, 72.0(66.0, 74.0)points, and 62.0(58.5, 63.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 12 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS score was 84.0(82.0, 85.0)points in Group B, higher than 75.0(75.0, 77.0)points, 79.0(72.0, 81.0)points, and 72.0(71.0, 73.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 14 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS score was 87.0(86.0, 87.0)points in Group B, higher than 82.0(82.0, 84.0)points, 83.0(80.0, 85.0)points, and 79.0(77.5, 80.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 16 weeks postoperatively, the ATRS scores were 87.0(87.0, 88.0)points and 88.0(87.0, 88.0)points in Group A and B, higher than 86.0(85.0, 87.0)points and 84.0(83.0, 85.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05). At 6 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot scores were 94.0(94.0, 95.0)points and 95.0(94.0, 96.0)points in Group A and B, higher than 85.0(83.0, 86.0)points and 74.0(72.0, 75.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and B ( P>0.05). At 8 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot scores were 100.0(99.0, 100.0)points in Group B, higher than 94.0(94.0, 95.0)points, 92.0(90.0, 93.0)points, and 83.0(82.0, 84.0)points in Group A, C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group A than those in Group C and D ( P<0.05) and a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05). At 10 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score was 100.0(100.0, 100.0)points in Group B, higher than 98.0(98.0, 98.0)points, 98.0(96.8, 99.0)points, and 96.0(95.0, 97.0)points in Group A, C and D, with higher scores in Group A and C than that in Group D ( P<0.05) but with no significant difference between Group A and C ( P>0.05). At 12 weeks postoperatively, the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score was 100.0(100.0, 100.0)points in both Group A and B, with no significant difference between them ( P>0.05), which was higher than 100.0(98.0, 100.0)points and 99.0(98.0, 99.0)points in Group C and D ( P<0.05), with a higher score in Group C than that in Group D ( P<0.05). At 14 and 16 weeks postoperatively, AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score was 100.0(100.0, 100.0)points, with no significant difference among all the groups ( P>0.05). Superficial wound infection occurred in 12 patients [5.2%(5/96) in Group A, 0.6%(2/347) in Group B, 0.6%(2/346) in Group C and 2.9%(3/105) in Group D] ( P<0.01) while rerupture occurred in 16 [9.4%(9/96) in Group A, 1.2% (4/347) in Group B, 0.9%(3/105) in Group C, and 0 patient in Group D] ( P<0.01). Conclusion:For patients with unilateral acute Achilles tendon rupture, two weeks of postoperative external fixation after open repair can shorten the time of returning sports, alleviate pain, and promote functional recovery, without increasing the risk of complications.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.