-
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Sep 2023There is no consensus regarding the management of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) avulsion fractures and the expected outcomes after treatment. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is no consensus regarding the management of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) avulsion fractures and the expected outcomes after treatment.
PURPOSE
To systematically review clinical outcomes and complications after management of tibial-sided avulsion fractures of the PCL.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
A literature search of Scopus, PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials was performed in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included were studies with evidence levels 1 to 4 that reported clinical outcomes after treatment of PCL tibial-sided avulsion fractures in humans. The quality of the included studies was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. A meta-analysis was performed for patient-reported outcome measures using random-effects modeling with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
A total of 58 studies published between 1999 and 2022 were identified. The mean MINORS score was 9.90 ± 4.12, indicating overall low-quality evidence with high risk of bias. The studies comprised 1440 patients (mean age, 32.59 ± 5.69 years; 75.2% males) with a mean follow-up of 26.9 ± 19.6 months (range, 5.3-126 months). Most patients were treated with open surgery (63.6%), followed by arthroscopic surgery (29.7%) and nonoperative treatment (6.7%). All patients reported significant posttreatment improvement in both subjective and objective outcomes ( < .05 for all). Arthroscopic surgery was associated with lower postoperative posterior tibial translation compared with open surgery (range, 0.6-3.2 vs 1.7-3.1 mm), greater preoperative to postoperative improvement in Lysholm score (54.6 vs 48.8; < .0001), higher postoperative Tegner score (6.64 ± 1.03 vs 6.14 ± 2.29; = .0448), and a higher rate of return to sport (100% vs 89.5%; = .009). Nonoperative management was associated with a significantly lower fracture union rate (87% vs 99.1%; < .0001) and greater postoperative side-to-side posterior translation (4.9 ± 4.3 mm) when compared with operative management.
CONCLUSION
Although nonoperative and surgical management of PCL tibial avulsion fractures resulted in high rates of fracture union and improvement in functional outcome scores and a low incidence of complications, nonoperative treatment yielded a high side-to-side posterior displacement (>4 mm) with a lower rate of fracture union compared to surgical treatment.
PubMed: 37724253
DOI: 10.1177/23259671231188383 -
Children (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2023Tibial eminence fractures (TEF) of Meyers-McKeever type II-III-IV usually require surgical management. No consensus in the literature has been achieved regarding the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Tibial eminence fractures (TEF) of Meyers-McKeever type II-III-IV usually require surgical management. No consensus in the literature has been achieved regarding the best treatment option. The aims of the present systematic review were (1) to analyze the current literature and describe the outcomes of surgical treatment for TEF; and (2) to compare the outcomes of different surgical options using arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) with sutures or screws and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).
METHODS
A search was carried out with Pubmed, Medline, and Cochrane. Key terms were used "tibial" AND "eminence" or "spine" or "intercondylar" AND "paediatric" or "children" AND "fracture" or "avulsion" AND "treatment". Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. Demographic data, clinical outcomes, and complication rates were evaluated for each study. Means/standard deviation and sum/percentage were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Chi-square or t-student tests were applied. A -value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
ORIF showed superior clinical outcomes (Tegner ( < 0.05) and Lysholm ( < 0.001) scores) relative to ARIF and a lower incidence of arthrofibrosis ( < 0.05) and implant removal ( < 0.01). The Tegner, IKDC, and Lysholm scores showed statistically significant superior results following arthroscopic sutures compared to arthroscopic screws ( < 0.001). The incidence of arthrofibrosis was higher after arthroscopic sutures ( < 0.05), the implant removal was higher after screw fixation ( < 0.001) Conclusions: Better clinical results with low complication rates were achieved with ORIF surgery rather than ARIF; arthroscopic suture fixation resulted in higher clinical results compared to arthroscopic screw fixation and reduced the incidence of postoperative complications.
PubMed: 37628378
DOI: 10.3390/children10081379 -
Evidence-based Dentistry Sep 2023Systematic review.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
REVIEW QUESTION
Does splinting of traumatised primary teeth improve clinical outcomes?
CASE SELECTION
Clinical studies published after 2003 reporting trauma (luxation, root fracture or alveolar fracture) to primary teeth, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, were eligible for inclusion. Case reports were excluded, but case series were included. Studies reporting the outcome of splinting following avulsion injuries were excluded, as current guidance does not recommend re-implantation of teeth for these injuries.
DATA ANALYSIS
Two researchers independently assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, with a third researcher resolving any disagreements. The same two independent researchers conducted a quality assessment of the included studies.
RESULTS
Three retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. Only one of these studies had a control group. High success rates were reported for the management of teeth with root fractures. A benefit for splinting teeth with lateral luxation was not identified. No alveolar fractures were included.
CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that the outcome of the management of root fractures in primary teeth may benefit from flexible splinting. However, the evidence base is low.
Topics: Humans; Splints; Retrospective Studies; Tooth Root; Incisor; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 37433924
DOI: 10.1038/s41432-023-00914-3 -
Children (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2024Tibial spine avulsion fractures (TSAFs) account for approximately 14% of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. This study aims to systematically review the current... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Tibial spine avulsion fractures (TSAFs) account for approximately 14% of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. This study aims to systematically review the current evidence for the operative management of paediatric TSAFs.
METHODS
A search was carried out across four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies discussing the outcomes of the surgical management of paediatric TSAFs since 2000 were included.
RESULTS
Of 38 studies included for review, 13 studies reported outcomes of TSAF patients undergoing screw fixation only, and 12 studies used suture fixation only. In total, 976 patients underwent arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation (ARIF), and 203 patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The risk of arthrofibrosis with the use of ARIF ( = 0.45) and screws ( = 0.74) for TSAF repair was not significant. There was a significantly increased risk of knee instability ( < 0.0001), reoperation ( = 0.01), and post-operative pain ( = 0.007) with screw fixation compared to sutures.
CONCLUSIONS
While the overall benefits of sutures over screws and ARIF over ORIF are unclear, there is clear preference for ARIF and suture fixation for TSAF repair in practice. We recommend large-scale comparative studies to delineate long-term outcomes for various TSAF fixation techniques.
PubMed: 38539382
DOI: 10.3390/children11030345