-
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Jun 2022FAI (femoroacetabular impingement syndrome) is a common cause of hip pain, resulting in a decreased life quality. This study aims to compare the postoperative clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
FAI (femoroacetabular impingement syndrome) is a common cause of hip pain, resulting in a decreased life quality. This study aims to compare the postoperative clinical outcome between arthroscopic surgery (AT) and conservative treatment (CT).
METHOD
The six studies were selected from PubMed, Embase and OVID database. The data were extracted and analyzed by RevMan5.3. Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RevMan5.3 was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULT
Six observational studies were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials indicated five of six studies had a low risk of bias and one article had a high risk of bias. The differences were statistically significant between AT and CT for HOS (follow-up for 6 months), iHOT-33 (follow-up for 6 months) improvement, iHOT-33 (follow-up for 12 months) improvement, iHOT-33 (follow-up for 12 months), EQ-5D-5L index score (follow-up for 12 months) and AT showed higher benefits than CT. Meanwhile no statistically significant were found in iHOT-33 (follow-up for 6 months), EQ-5D-5L index score (follow-up for 6 months), EQ5D-VAS (follow-up for 6 months) and EQ5D-VAS (follow-up for 12 months).
CONCLUSION
AT and CT both can have clinical effects when facing FAI. In our meta-analysis, hip arthroscopy is statistically superior to conservative treatment in both long-term and short-term effects.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Arthroscopy; Conservative Treatment; Femoracetabular Impingement; Hip Joint; Humans; Postoperative Period; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35659016
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03187-1 -
Physical Therapy in Sport : Official... Sep 2020The purpose of this study was to review the current literature on rehabilitation protocols following arthroscopic meniscus repair.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study was to review the current literature on rehabilitation protocols following arthroscopic meniscus repair.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed of Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant articles from January 1990 to April 2019. Search terms were (meniscus OR meniscal repair) AND (repaired OR repair) AND (rehabilitation OR physiotherapy OR physical therapy). Each study was independently scored for methodological research quality level using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS). The following variables were extracted from each study: publication year, study type, evidence level, subject demographics, injury mechanism, meniscus tear type, surgical procedure, rehabilitation program [immobilization, weight bearing, ROM progression, therapeutic exercises, length of follow-up, patient-reported outcome measurements, return to sport timing/criteria and failure rate/criteria.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall MCMS was moderate 59.5 ± 11.7 (range = 42-90). The average MCMS score for postoperative rehabilitation was 4.7 ± 1.18. Only 1 (5.6%) study was a prospective randomized controlled trial and 14 studies (78%) had retrospective designs. Fourteen (78%) studies suggested that return to sports should occur between 3 and 6 months post-surgery. Early range of motion and immediate weight-bearing had no influence over patient-reported outcomes or failure rates for vertical meniscus tear repairs.
CONCLUSION
Low MCMS scores, primarily retrospective study designs and poorly described postoperative rehabilitation protocols made it difficult to design an evidence-based therapeutic rehabilitation program for patients following arthroscopic repair of an isolated meniscus tear. An arthroscopic isolated meniscal tear repair rehabilitation protocol is being attempted to present based on a synopsis of existing evidence.
Topics: Arthroscopy; Humans; Postoperative Care; Return to Sport; Tibial Meniscus Injuries
PubMed: 32688294
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2020.06.011 -
Acta Orthopaedica Et Traumatologica... 2016The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of 3 tests for assessing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of 3 tests for assessing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CBM (Chinese Biomedical Literature Database) searches were performed. Studies selected for data extraction were those that addressed the accuracy of at least 1 physical diagnostic test for ACL rupture in comparison with a clinical reference standard such as arthroscopy, arthrotomy, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The references of the included studies were also reviewed. Searches were limited to English and Chinese languages.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies that assessed the accuracy of the 3 tests for diagnosing ACL ruptures met the inclusion criteria. Study results were, however, heterogeneous. The Lachman test is the most sensitive test to determine ACL tears, showing a pooled sensitivity of 87.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.90). The pivot shift test is the most specific test, showing a pooled specificity of 97.5% (95% CI 0.95-0.99); additionally, it has the highest positive likelihood ratios (LR+) of 16.00 (95% CI 7.34-34.87). The Lachman test has the lowest negative likelihood ratios (LR-) of 0.17 (95% CI 0.11-0.25).
CONCLUSION
In cases of suspected ACL injury, it is recommended to perform the pivot shift test, as it is highly specific and has greater likelihood and discrimination of accurately diagnosing ACL rupture. The Lachman test has great efficacy in ruling out a diagnosis of ACL rupture because of the lowest negative likelihood ratios.
Topics: Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Arthroscopy; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Dimensional Measurement Accuracy; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 26854045
DOI: 10.3944/AOTT.2016.14.0283 -
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Mar 2022There is ongoing controversy regarding optimal treatment for full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Given that the evidence surrounding the use of various treatment options... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There is ongoing controversy regarding optimal treatment for full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Given that the evidence surrounding the use of various treatment options has expanded, an overall assessment is required.
OBJECTIVES
The following were compared to determine which resulted in improved patient-reported function, pain, and reoperation rates for each: (1) double-row (DR) fixation and single-row (SR) fixation in arthroscopic cuff repair; (2) latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) with lower trapezius transfer (LTT), partial rotator cuff repair, and superior capsular reconstruction (SCR); and (3) early and late surgical intervention.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, and Cochrane were searched through to April 20, 2021. Additional studies were identified from reviews. The following were included: (1) All English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients ≥18 years of age comparing SR and DR fixation, (2) observational studies comparing LDT with LTT, partial repair, and SCR, and (3) observational studies comparing early vs. late treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears.
RESULTS
A total of 15 RCTs (n = 1096 randomized patients) were included in the meta-analysis of SR vs. DR fixation. No significant standardized mean differences in function (0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.09, 0.24) or pain (-0.01, 95% CI -0.52, 0.49) were observed. There was a difference in retear rates in favor of DR compared with SR fixation (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06, 2.29). Four studies were included in the systematic review of LDT compared with a surgical control. LDT and partial repair did not reveal any differences in function (-1.12, 95% CI -4.02, 1.78) on comparison. A single study compared arthroscopically assisted LDT to LTT and observed a nonstatistical difference in the Constant score of 14.7 (95% CI -4.06, 33.46). A single RCT compared LDT with SCR and revealed a trend toward superiority for the Constant score with SCR with a mean difference of -9.6 (95% CI -19.82, 0.62). Comparison of early vs. late treatment revealed a paucity of comparative studies with varying definitions of "early" and "late" treatment, which made meaningful interpretation of the results difficult.
CONCLUSION
DR fixation leads to similar improvement in function and pain compared with SR fixation and results in a higher healing rate. LDT transfer yields results similar to those from partial repair, LTT, and SCR in functional outcomes. Further study is required to determine the optimal timing of treatment and to increase confidence in these findings. Future trials of high methodologic quality comparing LDT with LTT and SCR are required.
Topics: Arthroscopy; Humans; Rotator Cuff; Rotator Cuff Injuries; Superficial Back Muscles; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34906681
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.11.002 -
The American Journal of Sports Medicine May 2023Multiple studies have compared redislocation rates after stabilization and immobilization for patients experiencing a traumatic, first-time anterior shoulder dislocation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Multiple studies have compared redislocation rates after stabilization and immobilization for patients experiencing a traumatic, first-time anterior shoulder dislocation (ASD).
PURPOSE
To systematically review the literature to compare rates of recurrent instability and subsequent instability surgery in patients undergoing treatment for a first-time ASD with surgical stabilization versus shoulder immobilization.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 1.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify level 1 randomized studies that compared outcomes of surgical stabilization versus immobilization for treatment of primary ASD. The following search phrase was used: (glenohumeral OR anterior shoulder) AND (conservative OR nonoperative OR nonsurgical OR physiotherapy) AND (Bankart OR repair OR stabilization OR surgical OR surgery OR arthroscopic OR arthroscopy) AND (instability OR dislocation). Patients with soft tissue disruption alone as well as those with additional minor bony lesions (Hill-Sachs, Bankart) were included. Recurrent instability and subsequent instability surgery rates, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), and range of motion were evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 5 studies met inclusion criteria, including 126 patients undergoing surgical stabilization (mean age, 23.6 years; range, 15.0-39.0 years) and 133 patients undergoing treatment with sling immobilization only (mean age, 23.1 years; range, 15.0-31.0 years). Mean follow-up was 59.7 months. Overall, 6.3% of operative patients experienced recurrent instability at latest follow-up compared with 46.6% of nonoperative patients ( < .00001). Similarly, 4.0% of operative patients underwent a subsequent instability surgery compared with 30.8% of nonoperative patients ( < .00001). These same trends were demonstrated when data were isolated to nonoperative patients immobilized in internal rotation. When comparing the operative and nonoperative groups at latest follow-up, 1 study found significantly improved WOSI scores among operative patients ( = .035) and 1 study found significantly improved abducted external rotation in nonoperative patients ( = .02).
CONCLUSION
Patients, particularly active men in their 20s and 30s, undergoing treatment for a first-time ASD with a surgical stabilization procedure can be expected to experience significantly lower rates of recurrent instability and a significantly decreased need for a future stabilization procedure when compared with patients treated nonoperatively.
Topics: Male; Humans; Young Adult; Adult; Shoulder Joint; Shoulder; Joint Instability; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shoulder Dislocation; Arthroscopy; Recurrence
PubMed: 35148222
DOI: 10.1177/03635465211065403 -
Arthroscopy : the Journal of... Oct 2015To identify the indications and outcomes in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To identify the indications and outcomes in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy.
METHODS
The electronic databases Embase, Medline, HealthStar, and PubMed were searched from 1946 to July 19, 2014. Two blinded reviewers searched, screened, and evaluated the data quality of the studies using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scale. Data were abstracted in duplicate. Agreement and descriptive statistics are presented.
RESULTS
Six studies were included (3 prospective case series and 3 retrospective chart reviews), with a total of 448 hips examined. The most common indications for revision hip arthroscopy included residual femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), labral tears, and chondral lesions. The mean interval between revision arthroscopy and the index procedure was 25.6 months. Overall, the modified Harris Hip Score improved by a mean of 33.6% (19.3 points) from the baseline score at 1-year follow-up. In 14.6% of patients, further surgical procedures were required, including re-revision hip arthroscopy (8.0%), total hip replacement (5.6%), and hip resurfacing (1.0%). Female patients more commonly underwent revision hip arthroscopy (59.7%).
CONCLUSIONS
The current evidence examined in this review supports revision hip arthroscopy as a successful intervention to improve functional outcomes (modified Harris Hip Score) and relieve pain in patients with residual symptoms after primary FAI surgery, although the outcomes are inferior when compared with a matched cohort of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for FAI. The main indication for revision is a candidate who has symptoms due to residual cam- or pincer-type deformity that was either unaddressed or under-resected during the index operation. However, it is important to consider that the studies included in this review are of low-quality evidence. Surgeons should consider incorporating a minimum 2-year follow-up for individuals after index hip-preservation surgery because revisions tended to occur within this time frame.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
Topics: Aged; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroscopy; Female; Femoracetabular Impingement; Hip; Hip Joint; Humans; MEDLINE; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Management; Prospective Studies; Reoperation; Retrospective Studies; Rupture
PubMed: 26033461
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.03.039 -
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Jun 2022Superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears are common shoulder injuries, especially in overhead athletes. Often, initial management of these injuries is nonsurgical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears are common shoulder injuries, especially in overhead athletes. Often, initial management of these injuries is nonsurgical with focused rehabilitation. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the outcomes of nonsurgical management of SLAP tears in athletes.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed for articles published before March 2021 using key search terms pertaining to clinical studies evaluating the nonsurgical treatment of SLAP tears in adult patients published in English-language literature. Abstracts and manuscripts were independently reviewed by 2 co-authors to determine eligibility. Return-to-play rate and return-to-prior-athletic-performance rate were determined by combining results across studies.
RESULTS
Five articles met the inclusion criteria. There were 244 total athletes (162 elite or higher-level athletes). The mean ages ranged from 20.3 to 38.0 years. Type II SLAP tears were most common; baseball, softball, and weightlifting were the most common sports involved. The return-to-play rate was 53.7% in all athletes and 52.5% in elite or higher-level athletes. In athletes who were able to complete their nonoperative rehabilitation program, the return-to-play rate was 78% in all athletes and 76.6% in elite or higher-level athletes. The overall rate of return to prior performance was 42.6%, which increased to 72% for those athletes who were able to complete their rehabilitation. Patients who discontinued the rehabilitation protocol in favor of surgery had an average of 8 physical therapy sessions compared with 20 sessions for patients with successful nonoperative treatment. The timing of return to play was generally less than 6 months in studies that reported it. Patient-reported outcomes, including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and visual analog scale, all improved significantly after nonsurgical treatment. Factors associated with failure of nonsurgical management included older age, participation in overhead sports (especially baseball pitchers), traumatic injury, positive compression rotation test, concomitant rotator cuff injury, longer baseball career, longer symptomatic period, and the presence of a Bennett spur.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, nonoperative treatment of SLAP tears in athletes can be successful, especially in the subset of patients who are able to complete their rehabilitation program before attempting a return to play. Although nonoperative treatment should be considered the first line of treatment for most SLAP tears, there are some factors that may be associated with failure of conservative treatment; therefore, further high level, prospective studies would be beneficial to identify those athletes most likely to respond favorably to nonoperative treatment.
Topics: Adult; Arthroscopy; Athletic Injuries; Humans; Prospective Studies; Return to Sport; Shoulder Injuries; Shoulder Joint; Young Adult
PubMed: 35063641
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.12.022 -
Arthroscopy : the Journal of... Apr 2016This systematic review explored the indications, efficacy, and complications of hip arthroscopy in the setting of trauma. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review explored the indications, efficacy, and complications of hip arthroscopy in the setting of trauma.
METHODS
Databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science) were searched from database inception to March 2015 for studies using hip arthroscopy in trauma treatment. Systematic screening of eligible studies was undertaken in duplicate. The inclusion criteria included studies pertaining to arthroscopic intervention of all traumatic hip injuries. Abstracted data were organized in table format with descriptive statistics presented.
RESULTS
From an initial search yield of 2,809 studies, 32 studies (25 case reports and 7 case series) satisfied the criteria for inclusion. A total of 144 patients (age range, 10 to 53 years) underwent hip arthroscopy for 6 indications associated with trauma: 8 patients for bullet extraction, 6 for femoral head fixation, 82 for loose body removal, 6 for acetabular fracture fixation, 20 for labral intervention, and 23 for ligamentum teres debridement. Patients were followed up postoperatively for a mean of 2.9 years (range, 8 days to 16 years). Successful surgery was achieved in 96% of patients. The rate of major complications (i.e., pulmonary embolism and abdominal compartment syndrome) was 1.4% (2 of 144); avascular necrosis, 1.4% (2 of 144); and nerve palsy, 0.7% (1 of 144).
CONCLUSIONS
Hip arthroscopy appears effective and safe in the setting of trauma. These data should be interpreted with caution because of the low-quality evidence of the included studies. Surgeons should be aware of the potential complications such as abdominal compartment syndrome and thromboembolic events when performing hip arthroscopy in the setting of trauma.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.
Topics: Arthroscopy; Hip Injuries; Hip Joint; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26935573
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.12.029 -
Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review Dec 2015The primary objective of this study was to determine the minor and major complication rate of hip arthroscopy. The secondary objective was to provide strategies for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The primary objective of this study was to determine the minor and major complication rate of hip arthroscopy. The secondary objective was to provide strategies for avoiding complications. A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and checklist. Therapeutic hip arthroscopy investigations that reported on adverse events or complications were included. Narrative and other systematic reviews, meta-analyses, conference abstracts or proceedings, and level V evidence studies were excluded. No follow-up minimum was imposed. The results yielded 53 studies (8189 hip arthroscopies in 8071 subjects). Most studies were level IV evidence (74%) with a mean of 2.2±2.1 years follow-up. Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral pathology were the 2 most common indications for surgery, and osteochondroplasty for FAI and labral treatment were the 2 most common procedures performed. The minor and major complication rates were 7.9% and 0.45%, respectively. Iatrogenic chondrolabral damage and temporary nerve injury were the 2 most common minor complications. Extra-articular fluid extravasation was the most common major complication encountered. Minor complications associated with hip arthroscopy are generally technical in nature and may be related to the learning curve associated with hip arthroscopy. As surgeon experience increases and patient selection improves, a corresponding decline should be observed in minor complications. Strategies to prevent complications include careful preoperative planning, appropriate surgical indications, attention to detail in the operating room, and proper postoperative rehabilitation.
Topics: Adult; Age Distribution; Arthroscopy; Female; Femoracetabular Impingement; Follow-Up Studies; Hip Joint; Humans; Incidence; Intraoperative Complications; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Care; Radiography; Recovery of Function; Reoperation; Risk Assessment; Severity of Illness Index; Sex Distribution; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 26524553
DOI: 10.1097/JSA.0000000000000084 -
Arthroscopy : the Journal of... Jul 2015To determine indications for, operative findings of, and outcomes of revision hip arthroscopy. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To determine indications for, operative findings of, and outcomes of revision hip arthroscopy.
METHODS
A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Therapeutic clinical outcome studies reporting the indications for, operative findings of, and outcomes of revision hip arthroscopy were eligible for inclusion. All study-, patient-, and hip-specific data were extracted and analyzed. The Modified Coleman Methodology Score was used to assess study quality.
RESULTS
Five studies were included (348 revision hip arthroscopies; 333 patients; mean age, 31.4 ± 4.2 years; 60% female patients). All 5 studies were either Level III or IV evidence. The surgeon performing revision hip arthroscopy was the same as the primary hip surgeon in only 25% of cases. The mean time between primary and revision hip arthroscopy was 27.8 ± 7.0 months (range, 2 to 193 months). Residual femoroacetabular impingement was the most common indication for and operative finding of revision hip arthroscopy (81% of cases). The most commonly reported revision procedures were femoral osteochondroplasty (24%) and acetabuloplasty (18%). The modified Harris Hip Score was used in all 5 analyzed studies, with significant (P < .05) improvements observed in all 5 studies (weighted mean, 56.8 ± 3.6 preoperatively v 72.0 ± 8.3 at final follow-up [22.4 ± 9.8 months]; P = .01). Other patient-reported outcomes (Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score, 33-item International Hip Outcome Tool, Short Form 12) showed significant improvements but were not used in all 5 analyzed studies. After revision hip arthroscopy, subsequent reported operations were hip arthroplasty in 11 patients and re-revision hip arthroscopy in 8 patients (5% total reoperation rate).
CONCLUSIONS
Revision hip arthroscopy is most commonly performed for residual femoroacetabular impingement, with statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements shown in multiple patient-reported clinical outcome scores at short-term follow-up. The reoperation rate after revision hip arthroscopy is 5% within 2 years, including further arthroscopy or conversion to hip arthroplasty.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
Topics: Arthroscopy; Femoracetabular Impingement; Hip; Humans; Reoperation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25703289
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.12.027