-
Journal of Orthopaedic Research :... Aug 2023Acute low back pain (LBP) imposes a significant socioeconomical burden as it is the condition that, worldwide, cause the most disability. Nonetheless, the literature...
Acute low back pain (LBP) imposes a significant socioeconomical burden as it is the condition that, worldwide, cause the most disability. Nonetheless, the literature regarding the best pharmacological management of acute LBP is limited, and the indications available in the literature are conflicting. This work investigates whether the pharmacological management of acute LBP can effectively reduce pain and disability, and aims to identify which drugs show the highest efficacy. This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. In September 2022, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were accessed. All the randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of myorelaxants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and paracetamol for acute LPB were accessed. Only studies that investigated the lumbar spine were included. Only studies reporting on patients with acute LBP with symptom duration of less than 12 weeks were included. Only patients older than 18 years and with nonspecific low back pain were included. Studies that investigated the use of opioids in acute LBP were not considered. Data from 18 studies and 3478 patients were available. Myorelaxants and NSAIDs were effective in reducing pain and disability in acute LBP at approximately one week. The combination of NSAIDs and paracetamol was associated with a greater improvement than the use of NSAIDs alone, but paracetamol alone did not induce any significant improvement. Placebo was not effective in reducing pain. Clinical Significance: Myorelaxants, NSAIDs, and NSAIDs with paracetamol could reduce pain and disability in patients with acute LBP.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Acetaminophen; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Acute Pain
PubMed: 36811209
DOI: 10.1002/jor.25508 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Feb 2024In patients with COVID-19 infection and respiratory insufficiency, corticosteroid (CCS) administration is recommended. Among the wide range of complications and...
BACKGROUND
In patients with COVID-19 infection and respiratory insufficiency, corticosteroid (CCS) administration is recommended. Among the wide range of complications and interactions, time-limited high-dose CCS administration might promote avascular necrosis (AVN) in a cumulative dose. This systematic review updated the current evidence and characterises the trend of AVN following time-limited high-dose CCS administration in patients who had severe COVID-19, discussing management strategies and outcomes.
METHODS
This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. In October 2023, the following databases were accessed: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Scopus restricting the search to the years 2019 to 2023. All the clinical studies which investigated the association between time-limited high-dose CCS administration in patients with severe COVID-19 infection and AVN were accessed.
RESULTS
A total of 245 patients (9 studies) who experienced AVN following COVID-19 were included in the present investigation. 26% (63 of 245 included patients) were women. The mean age of the patients was 42.9 ± 17.7 years. Four studies focused on AVN of the hip and two on the knee, and the other studies included patients with AVN from mixed areas of the body (spine, pelvis, and shoulder). The mean time elapsed from COVID-19 infection to the development of symptomatic AVN was 79.4 ± 59.2 days (range, 14 to 166 days).
CONCLUSION
It is possible that even time-limited high-dose CCS administration in patients with severe COVID-19 infection increased the incidence of AVN. The mean time elapsed from COVID-19 infection to the development of symptomatic AVN was approximately 80 days. Given the high risk of bias in all the included studies, the quality of recommendations of the present investigation is low, and no reliable conclusion can be inferred.
Topics: Humans; Female; Adult; Middle Aged; Male; Pandemics; Risk Factors; COVID-19; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Osteonecrosis; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38347592
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04556-8 -
Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review Mar 2024Patients undergoing surgery for Superior-Labrum-anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) lesions are often worried about their return to sport performance. This systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients undergoing surgery for Superior-Labrum-anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) lesions are often worried about their return to sport performance. This systematic review determined the rate of return to sport and return to sport at the previous level (RTSP) after surgery for SLAP lesion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Meta-analysis of data through forest plot projections was conducted. Studies were divided and analyzed according to the type of interventions (isolated slap repair or SLAP repair with rotator cuff debridement and biceps tenodesis).
RESULTS
The mean overall rate of return to sport after the procedures was 90.6% and the mean overall rate of return to sport at the previous level after the procedures was 71.7%. RTSP rates of the whole population were 71% (95% CI: 60%-80%), 66% (95% CI: 49%-79%), and 78% (95% CI: 67%-87%) for isolated SLAP repair, SLAP repair with the rotator cuff debridement and biceps tenodesis, respectively. A lack of subgroup analysis for the specific performance demand or type of lesion related to the surgical technique used might induce a high risk of bias.
DISCUSSION
Return to sports at the previous level after surgically treated superior labrum anterior to posterior lesion is possible and highly frequent, with the highest rates of RTSP in patients treated with biceps tenodesis. More studies and better-designed trials are needed to enrich the evidence on indications of SLAP surgical treatment in relation to specific sports-level demand.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level-IV.
Topics: Humans; Return to Sport; Shoulder Injuries; Tenodesis; Debridement
PubMed: 38695497
DOI: 10.1097/JSA.0000000000000383 -
Journal of Orthopaedics and... Feb 2024Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears in skeletally immature patients are increasingly common. Evidence comparing the outcomes of all-epiphyseal versus trans-epiphyseal...
All-epiphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction yields superior sports performances than the trans-epiphyseal technique in skeletally immature patients: a systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears in skeletally immature patients are increasingly common. Evidence comparing the outcomes of all-epiphyseal versus trans-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction in skeletally immature patients is limited, and the current literature could benefit from a comprehensive systematic review. The present study compared all-epiphyseal versus trans-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction in skeletally immature patients. The outcomes of interest were to compare joint laxity, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), return to sport, and complications.
METHODS
This study was conducted according to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. In November 2023, the following databases were accessed: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase. No additional filters were used in the database search. All the clinical studies investigating ACL reconstruction in skeletally immature patients were accessed. Only articles that clearly stated the surgical technique (all- or trans-epiphyseal) were eligible. Only articles with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up were included. Only articles that clearly stated that surgeries were conducted in children with open physis were eligible.
RESULTS
Data from 1489 patients (1493 procedures) were collected, of which 32% (490 of 1489 patients) were female. The mean length of follow-up was 46.6 months. The mean age of the patients was 12.7 years. No difference was found in joint laxity (Table 3): positive pivot shift (P = 0.4), positive Lachman test (P = 0.3), and mean arthrometer laxity (P = 0.1). No difference was found in PROMs (Table 4): International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) (P = 0.3), Lysholm (P = 0.4), and Tegner (P = 0.7). The trans-epiphyseal technique was associated with a greater rate of patients unable to return to sports (1% versus 7%, P = 0.0001) and with a longer time to return to sports (7.7 versus 8.6 months, P = 0.01). Though the trans-epiphyseal technique was associated with a lower rate of return to sport, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.8). No difference was evidenced in the rate of patients who had reduced their league or level of sports activity (P = 0.6) or in the rate of patients who had returned to their previous league or level of sports activity (P = 0.7). No difference was found in the rate of complication: re-tear (P = 0.8), reoperation (P = 0.7), increased laxity (P = 0.9), and persistent instability sensation (P = 0.3).
CONCLUSION
Trans-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction was associated with a greater rate of patients unable to return to sport and with a longer time to return to sport compared with the all-epiphyseal technique in skeletally immature patients. Level of evidence Level III, systematic review.
Topics: Child; Humans; Female; Male; Joint Instability; Athletic Performance; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 38376718
DOI: 10.1186/s10195-024-00751-9