-
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Feb 2023Scapular winging is a rare condition of the shoulder girdle that presents challenging treatment decisions for clinicians. To inform clinical practice, clinicians need... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Scapular winging is a rare condition of the shoulder girdle that presents challenging treatment decisions for clinicians. To inform clinical practice, clinicians need guidance on what the best treatment decision is for their patients, and such recommendations should be based on the total evidence available. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to systematically review the evidence regarding nonsurgical management and tendon transfer surgery of patients with neurologic scapular winging due to serratus anterior (SA) or trapezius (TP) palsy.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, and Academic Search Premier were searched up to April 5, 2022, for studies reporting on clinical outcomes after nonsurgical management and tendon transfer surgery of scapular winging due to weakness of the SA or TP muscle. The Integrated quality Criteria for Review Of Multiple Study (ICROMS) tool was used to classify the quality of the studies. Primary outcomes were the fraction of patients with spontaneous recovery after nonsurgical management and improvement in shoulder function, pain scores, and shoulder scores after tendon transfer surgery. Data were pooled if data on the same outcome were available for at least 3 studies, using random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-three (10 moderate-quality [MQ] and 13 low-quality) studies were included. Six studies (3 MQ; 234 shoulders) reported on outcomes after nonsurgical management of SA palsy, whereas 12 (6 MQ; 221 shoulders) and 6 studies (1 MQ; 80 shoulders) evaluated the outcomes of tendon transfer for SA or TP palsy (1 study addressed both). Spontaneous recovery of scapular winging with nonsurgical management varied between 21% and 78% across studies after a median follow-up of 72 months. For surgical management of SA palsy, pooling data in a meta-analysis showed that patients on average improved by 47° (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-61, P ≤ .001) in active forward flexion, had lower visual analog scale scores for pain (mean difference [MD]: -3.0, 95% CI: -4.9 to -1.0, P = .003), and had substantial improvements in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (MD: 24, 95% CI: 9-39, P = .002) and Constant scores (MD: 45, 95% CI: 39-51, P ≤ .001). Patients with TP palsy on average improved by 36° (95% CI: 21-51, P ≤ .001) in active forward flexion after tendon transfer. Statistical pooling was not possible for other outcome measures as insufficient data were available.
CONCLUSION
A substantial part of nonsurgically managed patients with scapular winging seem to have persistent complaints, which should be part of the information provided to patients. Data pooling demonstrated significant improvements in shoulder function, pain scores, and shoulder scores after tendon transfer surgery, but higher quality evidence is needed to allow for more robust recommendations and guide clinical decision-making on when to perform such functional surgery.
Topics: Humans; Tendon Transfer; Scapula; Shoulder; Paralysis; Pain
PubMed: 36252782
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2022.09.009 -
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Oct 2021Recent studies have suggested that femoral tunnel drilling during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) with the use of a flexible reaming system... (Review)
Review
Comparing the Use of Flexible and Rigid Reaming Systems Through an Anteromedial Portal for Femoral Tunnel Creation During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.
BACKGROUND
Recent studies have suggested that femoral tunnel drilling during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) with the use of a flexible reaming system through a standard anteromedial portal (AM-FR) may result in a different tunnel geometry compared with a rigid reamer through an accessory anteromedial portal with hyperflexion (AM-RR).
PURPOSE
To summarize radiologic, anatomic, and clinical outcomes from available studies that directly compared the use of AM-FR versus AM-RR for independent femoral tunnel creation during ACLR.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using the MEDLINE (PubMed) and Web of Science databases to identify all studies that directly compared radiologic, anatomic, and clinical outcomes between the use of AM-FR and AM-RR. The literature search, data recording, and methodological quality assessment was performed by 2 independent reviewers. The outcomes analyzed included resultant ACL graft positioning and graft bending angle; femoral tunnel positioning, aperture morphology, length, and widening; posterior wall breakage; and distance from various posterolateral knee structures.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. There was no difference in femoral tunnel aperture location between techniques. There were conflicting findings among studies regarding which technique resulted in a more acute graft bending angle. One study reported greater femoral tunnel widening upon follow-up with the use of AM-FR. AM-FR produced longer and more anteverted femoral tunnels than did AM-RR. The difference in tunnel length was significant and more prominent in lesser degrees of knee flexion. With AM-FR, femoral tunnels were farther from the lateral collateral ligament and peroneal nerve, and 1 of 5 studies had fewer reports of posterior wall breakage. There has been no literature comparing the clinical or functional outcomes of these techniques.
CONCLUSION
Although no clinical studies exist comparing AM-FR and AM-RR for femoral tunnel creation during ACLR, both systems allow for reproducible positioning of an anatomic femoral tunnel aperture. The use of AM-FR results in longer and more anteverted femoral tunnels than using AM-RR, with exit points on the lateral femur that are different but safe. Surgeons should be aware of the technical differences with each method; however, further study is needed to identify any clinically important difference that results.
PubMed: 34631903
DOI: 10.1177/23259671211035741