-
Orthopaedic Surgery Aug 2023There is considerable controversy regarding the optimal approach (open vs arthroscopic) of releasing and/or debridement for the treatment of tennis elbow (TE). The aim... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
There is considerable controversy regarding the optimal approach (open vs arthroscopic) of releasing and/or debridement for the treatment of tennis elbow (TE). The aim of this study was to determine the clinical outcomes of the two techniques by quantitatively synthesizing outcome data. The study was performed by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and Elsevier databases between January 1995 and April 2022 for a minimum follow-up of 6 months. The searching strategy was "(tennis elbow [Title/Abstract] OR lateral epicondylitis [Title/Abstract]) AND (open [Title/Abstract] OR arthroscopic [Title/Abstract] OR release [Title/Abstract] OR debridement [Title/Abstract] OR surgery [Title/Abstract])". The quality of each study was investigated using the Coleman Methodology Score. In total, 1411 (693 open, 718 arthroscopic) elbows in 1392 patients who underwent releasing and debridement for tennis elbow were identified. The mean Coleman Methodology Score for the included studies was 55.2 ± 8.6 (open: 55.0 ± 9.4, arthroscopic: 55.8 ± 8.2). Improved clinical results were achieved after treatment with either open or arthroscopic treatment. The surgical success rate was 95.6% in open surgery and 92.4% in arthroscopic management. The complication rates were 2.2% and 1.5% for open and arthroscopic procedures, respectively. Similar subjective and objective outcomes, and surgical success rate were observed in patients with both techniques. Patients who had undergone arthroscopic release seemed to return to work earlier (5.3 weeks vs 7.1 weeks). To draw more definite conclusions, high-quality long-term follow-up randomized controlled trials are needed.
Topics: Humans; Treatment Outcome; Tennis Elbow; Arthroscopy; Elbow Joint; Debridement
PubMed: 36444948
DOI: 10.1111/os.13570 -
Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and... Oct 2021The purpose of this study was to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain whether acetabular labral repair (ALR) or debridement (ALD) resulted... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain whether acetabular labral repair (ALR) or debridement (ALD) resulted in superior patient outcomes.
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Peer-reviewed studies comparing ALR and ALD published in English with full text available were included. Patients undergoing both open and arthroscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies were included. Studies were quantified for methodological quality using the MINORS criteria. Clinical outcomes were compared, with qualitative analysis, and quantitative analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism version 7. A value <.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
RESULTS
There were 8 studies included (level of evidence [LOE] I = 1; LOE II = 2; LOE III = 5). The 7 studies compared 364 patients (369 hips) with ALR to 318 patients (329 hips) with ALD, with a mean follow-up time ranging between 32-120 months. Five studies found significantly improved patient reported outcomes with ALR (Harris Hip Score, Merle d'Aubigné, Pain, SF-12). Several studies compared the outcomes after ALR and ALD and found statistical significance in all investigated metrics in favor of ALR. One study found a significant improvement in abduction but no other study found any difference in range of motion. No study found any difference in complication rate, revision rate or conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Although, 2 studies found ALR reduced the rate of osteoarthritic progression.
CONCLUSION
Current literature suggests that acetabular labral repair may result in superior patient reported outcomes. However, there appears to be no significant difference in the rate of progression to total hip arthroplasty at up to 10-year follow-up.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III, systematic review of Level I, II, and III studies.
PubMed: 34712994
DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.06.008 -
Foot (Edinburgh, Scotland) Dec 2021Arthroscopic debridement (AD) for the osteochondral lesions of the talar dome (OLT) was widely documented in the nineties with satisfactory results. However, in modern... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Arthroscopic debridement (AD) for the osteochondral lesions of the talar dome (OLT) was widely documented in the nineties with satisfactory results. However, in modern treatment algorithms, its role is not described. The present systematic review aims to evaluate the current evidence on the clinical outcomes of AD in the management of OLT.
METHODS
Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Virtual Health Library databases evaluating the clinical outcomes of AD of OLT with a minimum 6-month follow-up. The following terms "talus", "chondral", "cartilage", "injury", "lesion", "delamination", "damage", "excision", "curettage", "debridement", "chondrectomy", "chondroplasty", were used alone and in combination with Boolean operators AND and OR. Studies in which surgical technique was not described, an additional procedure was performed after debridement, and/or outcomes were not reported separately when more than one technique was implemented were excluded. The modified Coleman methodology score (mCMS) was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. A narrative analysis was conducted. Publication bias was assessed using the ROBIS tool.
RESULTS
AD showed satisfactory short and medium-term outcomes for the primary treatment of OLT irrespectively of size and depth. However, the heterogeneity of the included studies and the level of available evidence hinders its recommendation.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a paucity of evidence evaluating AD alone for OLT treatment in the last two decades. Bone-marrow stimulation techniques remain the first-line surgical strategy for OLT treatment without proven superiority. Adopting AD for OLT treatment instead of MF could represent a paradigm breakthrough in clinical practice given its many potential advantages while preserving the subchondral plate.
Topics: Arthroscopy; Cartilage, Articular; Debridement; Humans; Intra-Articular Fractures; Talus; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34536818
DOI: 10.1016/j.foot.2021.101852 -
Foot and Ankle Surgery : Official... Jul 2022This systematic review investigated the outcomes of revision surgery after periprosthetic ankle infection (PAI). (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review investigated the outcomes of revision surgery after periprosthetic ankle infection (PAI).
METHODS
According to the PRISMA statement, 9 studies with 131 PAIs surgically treated and analyzed were included. Demographics and surgical techniques with eradication rates and complications were reported.
RESULTS
Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) (30.4%) and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CNS) (26.5%) were the most common microorganisms. The eradication rate was 91.7% with permanent antibiotic spacers (SPC), 84.4% with 2-stage, 79.4% with arthrodesis (AA), and 58.8% with debridement and implant retention (DAIR). DAIR showed a significantly lower eradication rate than 2-stage (p = 0.016) and SPC (p = 0.043). Amputations occurred in 25% of patients after SPC, 8.8% after AA and 3.9% after DAIR. SPC showed a significantly higher amputation rate than DAIR and 2-stage (p = 0.044, and p = 0.017, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
SPC and 2-stage revision show the highest eradication rates, but 2-stage has a lower risk of amputation.
Topics: Ankle; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Debridement; Humans; Limb Salvage; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34321185
DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2021.07.009 -
The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery :... 2014Septic arthrosis of the ankle is a rare, often devastating, infection, with a high potential for morbidity and mortality. Delay in treatment can lead to cartilage... (Review)
Review
Septic arthrosis of the ankle is a rare, often devastating, infection, with a high potential for morbidity and mortality. Delay in treatment can lead to cartilage erosion, painful synovitis, and osteomyelitis. Septic ankle arthrosis deserves prompt recognition and intervention. However, quality, sound, protocol-directed arthroscopic treatment of septic ankle arthrosis of the ankle has not yet been reported. We performed a systematic review of the electronic databases and other relevant peer-reviewed sources to determine the outcomes and treatment protocols associated with septic ankle arthrosis treated with arthroscopic synovectomy, irrigation, and debridement. Nine studies, involving a total of 15 ankles, met our inclusion criteria. In addition, we present the short-term outcomes of a protocol-driven arthroscopic synovial biopsy, deep culture procurement, synovectomy, irrigation, and debridement approach for 8 ankles (8 patients). To our knowledge, this would be the largest individual case series specific to arthroscopic treatment of septic ankle arthrosis. The most common infectious organism reported in the systematic review and in our case series was methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. Arthroscopic synovectomy, irrigation, and debridement represents an acceptable treatment method for septic ankle arthrosis and demonstrated outcomes similar to the more traditional open approach, with fewer complications. Additional, appropriately weighted, randomized controlled studies with long-term follow-up are warranted.
Topics: Ankle Joint; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Arthritis, Infectious; Arthroscopy; Clinical Protocols; Debridement; Humans; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus; Synovectomy; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 24345707
DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2013.10.012 -
Heart, Lung & Circulation Jan 2022Proximal aortic graft infection (PAGI) is a rare but often fatal postoperative complication. Its management often relied on surgical preferences and resource... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Proximal aortic graft infection (PAGI) is a rare but often fatal postoperative complication. Its management often relied on surgical preferences and resource availability of each centre, until the recent unifying guidelines published by the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). This paper aimed to amalgamate the published experience in managing PAGI and their outcomes.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically. All primary studies besides single-patient case reports were included. Data extracted included study and patient characteristics, type of index surgery, type of microorganisms involved, definitive treatment modality, and any outcome measures reported.
RESULTS
Of the 20 studies included, 157 of the 290 PAGI patients underwent complete graft explantation and replacement, 106 underwent graft-preservation interventions (debridement and/or irrigation), and 25 had antibiotics alone. Adjunctive interventions included graft coverage, vacuum-assisted closure, use of infection-resistant graft materials, and lifelong suppressive therapy. In-hospital mortality was 20.8% (n=60), with postoperative sepsis and multiorgan failure (n=24) being the most common cause. Recurrent infection occurred in 10 post-discharge patients. Post-discharge mortality rate was 11.4% (n=33), with cardiac complications and stroke being the most common cause in surgically-treated and medically-treated patients, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the risk of mortality, the management approach of PAGI highly depends on the fitness of the patient. We believe that early referral to specialised aortic centres is essential to plan for optimal management strategies and improve patient outcomes. Further studies are also required to parse out the most effective adjunctive interventions to maximise patient outcomes.
Topics: Aftercare; Aorta; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Patient Discharge; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34602347
DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2021.07.026 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Unrelieved pressure or friction of the skin, particularly over bony prominences, can lead to pressure ulcers in up to one third of people in hospitals or community care,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Unrelieved pressure or friction of the skin, particularly over bony prominences, can lead to pressure ulcers in up to one third of people in hospitals or community care, and one fifth of nursing home residents. Pressure ulcers are more likely in people with reduced mobility and poor skin condition, such as older people or those with vascular disease.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of preventive interventions in people at risk of developing pressure ulcers? What are the effects of treatments in people with pressure ulcers? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 64 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: air-filled vinyl boots, air-fluidised supports, alternating-pressure surfaces (including mattresses), alternative foam mattresses, constant low-pressure supports, debridement, electric profiling beds, electrotherapy, hydrocellular heel supports, low-air-loss beds (including hydrotherapy beds), low-level laser therapy, low-tech constant-low-pressure supports, medical sheepskin overlays, nutritional supplements, orthopaedic wool padding, pressure-relieving overlays on operating tables, pressure-relieving surfaces, repositioning (regular "turning"), seat cushions, standard beds, standard care, standard foam mattresses, standard tables, surgery, therapeutic ultrasound, topical lotions and dressings, topical negative pressure, and topical phenytoin.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Bandages; Bedding and Linens; Beds; Debridement; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Patient Positioning; Phenytoin; Pressure Ulcer; Standard of Care; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 21524319
DOI: No ID Found -
Hand Clinics Feb 2018Open fractures of the hand are thought to be less susceptible to infection than other open fractures because of the increased blood supply to the area. Current evidence... (Review)
Review
Open fractures of the hand are thought to be less susceptible to infection than other open fractures because of the increased blood supply to the area. Current evidence for all open fractures shows that antibiotic use and the extent of contamination are predictive of infection risk, but time to debridement is not. We reviewed in a systematic review the available literature on open fractures of the hand and upper extremity to determine infection rates based on the timing of debridement and antibiotic administration. We continue to recommend prompt debridement and treatment of most open fractures of the upper extremity.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Debridement; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Fractures, Open; Hand Injuries; Humans; Surgical Wound Infection; Time-to-Treatment
PubMed: 29169601
DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2017.09.001 -
Cureus Jul 2023Ramp lesions are a common occurrence in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. These lesions can be difficult to diagnose due to their concealed nature,... (Review)
Review
Ramp lesions are a common occurrence in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. These lesions can be difficult to diagnose due to their concealed nature, and their treatment is crucial due to the stabilizing function of the medial meniscocapsular region. The optimal treatment option for ramp lesions varies depending on the size and stability of the lesion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the best treatment option for ramp lesions based on the stability of the lesion, including no treatment, biological treatment, and arthroscopic repair. We hypothesize that stable lesions have a favorable prognosis with techniques that do not require the use of meniscal sutures. In contrast, unstable lesions require appropriate fixation, either through an anterior or posteromedial portal. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis with a level of evidence IV. The study used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for a systematic review of clinical studies reporting outcomes of ramp lesion treatment. The PubMed/MEDLINE database was searched using Mesh and non-Mesh terms related to ramp lesions, medial meniscus ramp lesions, and meniscocapsular injuries. The inclusion criteria encompassed clinical studies in English or Spanish that reported the treatment of ramp meniscal lesions, with a follow-up of at least six months and inclusion of functional results, clinical stability tests, radiological evaluation, or arthroscopic second look. The analysis included 13 studies with 1614 patients. Five studies distinguished between stable and unstable ramp lesions using different criteria (displacement or size) for assessment. Of the stable lesions, 90 cases received no treatment, 64 cases were treated biologically (debridement, edge-curettage, or trephination), and 728 lesions were repaired. There were 221 repaired unstable lesions. All different methods of repair were registered. In stable lesions, three studies were included in a network meta-analysis. The best-estimated treatment for stable lesions was biological (SUCRA 0.9), followed by repair (SUCRA 0.6), and no treatment (SUCRA 0). In unstable lesions, seven studies using International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC) and 10 studies using Lysholm for functional outcomes showed significant improvement from preoperative to postoperative scores after repair, with no differences between repairing methods. We recommend simplifying the classification of ramp lesions as stable or unstable to determine treatment. Biological treatment is preferred for stable lesions rather than leaving them in situ. Unstable lesions, on the other hand, require repair, which has been associated with excellent functional outcomes and healing rates.
PubMed: 37435014
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.41651 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2021Open tibial fractures are complex injuries with variable outcomes that significantly impact patients' lives. Surgical debridement is paramount in preventing detrimental... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Open tibial fractures are complex injuries with variable outcomes that significantly impact patients' lives. Surgical debridement is paramount in preventing detrimental complications such as infection and non-union; however, the exact timing of debridement remains a topic of great controversy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between timing of surgical debridement and outcomes such as infection and non-union in open tibial fractures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to capture studies evaluating the association between timing of initial surgical debridement and infection or non-union, or other reported outcomes. We searched the MEDLINE, PubMed Central, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central and Web of Science electronic databases. Our methodology was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.
RESULTS
The systematic review included 20 studies with 10,032 open tibial fractures. The overall infection rate was 14.3% (314 out of 2193) and the overall non-union rate 14.2% (116 out of 817). We did not find any statistically significant association between delayed debridement and infection rate (OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.11; = 0.23) or non-union rate (OR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.15; = 0.13). These findings did not change when we accounted for the effect of different time thresholds used for defining early and late debridement, nor with the Gustilo-Anderson classification or varying study characteristics.
CONCLUSION
The findings of this meta-analysis support that delayed surgical debridement does not increase the infection or non-union rates in open tibial fracture injuries. Consequently, we propose that a reasonable delay in the initial debridement is acceptable to ensure that optimal management conditions are in place, such that the availability of surgical expertise, skilled staff and equipment are prioritised over getting to surgery rapidly. We recommend changing the standard guidance around timing for performing surgical debridement to 'as soon as reasonably possible, once appropriate personnel and equipment are available; ideally within 24-h'.
PubMed: 34199379
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11061017