Sarcopenia is a disease of gradual loss of muscle mass in elderly people, and the most common treatment options include nutritional supplementation and exercise. Vitamin D has potential beneficial effects for skeletal muscle tissue and has often been included in nutritional therapy formulations. However, the therapeutic effect of vitamin D for the treatment of sarcopenia has not yet been determine and there is a lack of high-quality supporting evidence. We searched three databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic. Changes in hand grip strength, gait speed, chair-stand test, fat mass, relative skeletal muscle index, and muscle mass were assessed for analysis. Network meta-analysis was further employed, based on the frequentist approach. Outcomes were reported as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 9 RCTs (n = 1420) met our eligibility criteria, which treated patients with vitamin D (D), protein (P, n = 165), exercise (E, n = 124), iso-caloric product (I, n = 226), usual care without nutritional supplement (n = 65), P + D (n = 467), D + E (n = 72), P + E (n = 69), D + E + I (n = 73), and P + D + E (n = 159). The pooled estimate showed that the P + D + E intervention induced a greater improvement in hand grip strength than iso-caloric product intervention (WMD = 3.86; 95%CI, 0.52–7.21). Vitamin D intervention could lead to shorter chair-stand time (WMD = −1.32; 95%CI, −1.98 to −0.65), but no significant findings could be found for gait speed and muscle mass outcomes. Our synthesis found that combining vitamin D supplementation with protein supplementation and exercise can significantly increase grip strength and also showed a trend toward increasing muscle mass. This result implies that adding vitamin D to a standard treatment protocol for sarcopenia may be helpful for regaining function.

Study Design: A network meta-analysis. Objectives: Lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) is an important issue in aging population, for which lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a feasible management in cases refractory to conservative therapy. There are various techniques available to perform LIF, including posterior (PLIF), transforaminal (TLIF), and anterior (ALIF) approaches. However, the comparative safety profile of these procedures remains controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate comparative adverse events of the LIF procedures in patients with LDDD. Methods: We searched 5 databases for relevant prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials. After quality assessments, we extracted neural, spinal, vascular, and wound events for conducting contrast-based network meta-analysis. Results were reported in risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA). Results: We identified 14 studies involving 921 participants with LDDD. Pooled result showed that open PLIF (OPLIF) leads to significantly higher overall adverse event rate than does open TLIF (OTLIF; RR = 3.43, 95% CI = 1.21-9.73). OTLIF confers the highest SUCRA in neural (78.7) and spinal (80.8) event rates. Minimally invasive TLIF has the highest SUCRA in vascular event (84.2), and minimally invasive PLIF has the highest SUCRA in wound event (88.1). No inconsistency or publication bias was detected in the results. Conclusions: Based on our results, perhaps OPLIF should be avoided in the management of LDDD due to the inferiority of overall complications. Specifically, TLIF seems to have the safest profile in terms of neural, spinal, and vascular events. Nevertheless, shared decision making is still mandatory when choosing the proper LIF procedure for patients with LDDD in clinical practice.

Study Design: Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Objectives: Lumbar spondylolisthesis is a common indication for spinal fusion. Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is popular method to achieve arthrodesis, but previous syntheses usually used head-to-head comparison of 2 surgical methods, and no of them pooled analysis with high-quality. This network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was carried out to simultaneously compare fusion techniques in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods: Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic. After critical appraisal, fusion rate, overall adverse events, operative time, Oswestry Disability Index, and pain were extracted for analysis. We conduced network meta-analysis using contrast-based method. Primary outcomes were reported as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Fifteen RCTs (n = 992) met our eligibility criteria. The RCTs treated patients posterolateral fusion (PLF), posterior LIF (PLIF), transforaminal LIF (TLIF), minimally invasive (MIS) TLIF, extreme lateral LIF (XLIF), and circumferential fusion. The pooled estimate showed that circumferential fusion led to significantly higher fusion rate than PLF (RR = 2.15, 95%CI:1.41–3.28), PLIF (RR = 2.11, 95%CI:1.38–3.22), TLIF (RR = 2.13, 95%CI:1.39–3.27), MIS-TLIF (RR = 2.13, 95%CI:1.35–3.35), and XLIF (RR = 2.01, 95%CI: 1.25–3.22). Moreover, circumferential fusion exhibited the best balance in probability between fusion rate and adverse event rate. No evidence showed inconsistency or small-study effect in the results. Conclusions: Collectively, circumferential fusion might be worth to be recommended because it exhibits the best balance between fusion rate and overall adverse event. PLF is still an inferior procedure and requires shorter operative time.