-
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Jul 2024The discoid meniscus (DM) is distinguished by its thickened, disc-shaped formation, which extends over the tibial plateau. The likelihood of developing osteoarthritis... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The discoid meniscus (DM) is distinguished by its thickened, disc-shaped formation, which extends over the tibial plateau. The likelihood of developing osteoarthritis escalates if a DM tear remains undiagnosed and untreated. While DM tears can be diagnosed through arthroscopy, the high cost, invasive nature and limited availability of this procedure highlight the need for a better diagnostic modality. This study aims to determine the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosing DM tears.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted to gather articles with at least 10 cases on the comparison of MRI and arthroscopy as the gold standard for DM tear diagnosis. Stata and MetaDisc were used to conduct the statistical analysis. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.
RESULTS
Five diagnostic performance studies, derived from four original research papers involving 305 patients, were evaluated. Based on the pooled data, the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive limit of detection and negative limit of detection were found to be 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.91) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.90), 32.88 (95% CI, 5.81-186.02), 5.22 (95% CI, 1.71-15.92) and 0.18 (95% CI, 0.09-0.38), respectively. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve with an area under the curve of 0.92 was generated.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis demonstrates that MRI has excellent sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing DM tears. Despite its lower accuracy compared to arthroscopy, MRI can be used in symptomatic patients as a viable alternative to arthroscopy due to its inherent advantages.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV.
PubMed: 38899047
DOI: 10.1002/jeo2.12051 -
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Jul 2024to provide a comprehensive overview of all the surgical techniques published in the literature for repairing meniscal ramp lesions focusing on the technical aspects and... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
to provide a comprehensive overview of all the surgical techniques published in the literature for repairing meniscal ramp lesions focusing on the technical aspects and the pros and cons of every procedure. Such lesions can be managed using various approaches, each of this with its specific advantages and disadvantages.
METHODS
Pubmed Central, Scopus, and EMBASE databases were systematically reviewed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for studies on surgical techniques for repairing meniscal ramp lesions through May 2023. Overall, 32 articles matched the selection criteria and were included in the study.
RESULTS
Debridement alone may be sufficient for small stable meniscal ramp lesions but, for tears in the menisco-capsular junction that affect the stability of the medial meniscus, it seems reasonable to repair it, even though the clinical results available in literature are contrasting. All-inside sutures through anterior portals seems to be an effective solution for meniscal ramp lesions with MTL tears. All-inside sutures through posteromedial portals are particularly useful for large meniscal ramp lesions, in which an inside-out suture can also be performed.
CONCLUSION
Meniscal ramp lesions can be managed using various approaches, each of this with its specific advantages and disadvantages. Further research is required to determine the optimal technique that can be considered as the gold standard and can provide the better results.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III, systematic review.
PubMed: 38887657
DOI: 10.1002/jeo2.12037 -
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Jul 2024Septic arthritis of any joint is an orthopaedic emergency which requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. The knee is the commonest joint afflicted, and the primary...
PURPOSE
Septic arthritis of any joint is an orthopaedic emergency which requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. The knee is the commonest joint afflicted, and the primary objective of any treatment is complete source control. This commonly takes the form of antibiotic therapy and a washout of the infected joint by means of arthroscopy or arthrotomy. The primary aim of this review is to investigate if arthroscopic washout for native knee septic arthritis confers a lower risk of repeat procedure than arthrotomy.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of the MEDLINE, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Library data bases. The primary outcome of interest was requirement for repeat washout with all-cause complications, length of inpatient stay and mortality secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 17,140 subjects were included for analysis of the primary outcome, and the overall rate of repeat procedure was 14.6%. No statistical difference was found between arthroscopy and arthrotomy for repeat washout (risk ratio 0.86 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.72-1.02], = 36%). Eligible studies found in favour of arthroscopy for all-cause complication rate (risk ratio 0.75 [95% CI: 0.6-0.93], = 84%) and length of stay in hospital (mean difference -1.98 days [95% CI: -3.43 to -0.53], = 84%). No statistical difference was found for the mortality rate (risk ratio 1.17 [95% CI: 0.52-2.63], = 57%).
CONCLUSION
Our analysis found arthroscopy and open arthrotomy to be equivocal for repeat surgical washout in native knee septic arthritis. All-cause complication rate and length of inpatient stay were favourable for arthroscopy with no difference noted between mortality rates.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III.
PubMed: 38846377
DOI: 10.1002/jeo2.12041 -
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Jun 2024Many recent studies have shown that patients who undergo capsular repair after hip arthroscopy achieve superior clinical outcomes compared with those who do not.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many recent studies have shown that patients who undergo capsular repair after hip arthroscopy achieve superior clinical outcomes compared with those who do not. However, patients with dysplasia or generalized ligamentous laxity (GLL) were not excluded from most of these studies, which may have affected the outcomes.
PURPOSE
To determine whether capsular repair influences the outcomes of hip arthroscopy for patients without dysplasia or GLL.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.
METHODS
Under the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of capsulotomy with versus without repair were included, but studies that included patients with dysplasia or GLL were excluded. The study outcomes were patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 6 months and 2 years postoperatively-including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS)- and were compared between the repair and no-repair groups. A narrative analysis and meta-analysis were performed to integrate and compare the results of the 2 groups. In the meta-analysis of the outcome measures, studies with significant differences in the preoperative scores between the repair and no-repair groups were excluded because previous studies have shown that these can affect the outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 761 studies were initially identified, of which 3 were included. Of the 322 included patients, 136 underwent capsular repair, and 186 underwent capsulotomy with no repair. The meta-analysis showed that capsular repair was associated with significantly higher postoperative PROMs: the mHHS at 2 years ( = .03), the HOS-ADL at 6 months ( = .02) and 2 years ( < .0001), and the HOS-SSS at 6 months ( = .02) and 2 years ( = .001).
CONCLUSION
Capsular repair after hip arthroscopy was associated with superior clinical outcomes when compared with no capsular repair in patients without dysplasia or GLL.
PubMed: 38831873
DOI: 10.1177/23259671241251413 -
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Jun 2024There is a paucity of aggregate data documenting mid- to long-term outcomes of patients after hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is a paucity of aggregate data documenting mid- to long-term outcomes of patients after hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction.
PURPOSE
To report mid- to long-term outcomes in patients after undergoing either primary or revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction for the treatment of irreparable labral tears.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
A systematic review of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases in May 2022 was conducted with the following keywords: "hip arthroscopy,""labral reconstruction,""irreparable,""labrum,""reconstruction,""five-year,""midterm,""5 year,""long-term,""10 year," ten-year," and "femoroacetabular impingement" using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. Midterm was defined as mean 5-year follow-up, and long-term was defined as mean 10-year or longer follow-up. For each included article, the demographic, radiographic, intraoperative, and surgical variables, as well as patient-reported outcomes (PROs), psychometric thresholds, and secondary surgeries were recorded. Forest plots were created for PROs that were reported in ≥3 studies; heterogeneity was assessed using values.
RESULTS
Out of 463 initial articles, 5 studies including 178 hips with primary and 41 hips with revision surgeries were included. One study had an average 5-year follow-up, three studies had a minimum 5-year follow-up and one study had a minimum 10-year follow-up. The most common indications for hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction were irreparable labral tears. The most common PRO was the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), which was reported in all 5 studies. The mean preoperative mHHS ranged from 58.9 to 66, and the mean postoperative mHHS at minimum 5-year follow-up ranged from 80.2 to 89. The preoperative and postoperative mHHSs for the single long-term follow-up study were 60 and 82, respectively. All 5 studies demonstrated significant improvements in reported PROs. All 5 studies reported secondary surgery rates, with 1 study reporting rates at both 5- and 10-year follow-up. Conversion to total hip arthroplasty ranged from 0% to 27%, while overall secondary surgery rates ranged from 0% to 36%.
CONCLUSION
Findings demonstrated that patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction experienced favorable outcomes and high rates of clinical benefit and survivorship at mid- to long-term follow-up.
PubMed: 38831872
DOI: 10.1177/23259671241232306 -
Heliyon May 2024The impact of capsular closure vs non-closure in hip arthroscopy for femoracetabular impingement (FAI) was assessed by a meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The impact of capsular closure vs non-closure in hip arthroscopy for femoracetabular impingement (FAI) was assessed by a meta-analysis.
METHODS
With the most recent search update occurring in August 2022, relevant studies were found by searching the Pubmed and EMBASE databases. A collection of studies was made that conducted hip arthroscopy for FAI. Review Manager 5.3 was used to carry out the meta-analysis. The dichotomous and continuous factors were compared using the odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD). A fixed-effect or random-effect model was chosen, depending on the degree of heterogeneity (I). Forest plots were used to assess the results. A significance level of P < 0.05 was applied to the statistical analysis.
RESULTS
Ultimately, 15 studies were incorporated into the meta-analysis. The surgery time was longer for the capsular closure group (CC group) compared to the non-closure (NC group) group. ( < 0.001, SMD = 8.59, 95%CI [7.40, 9.77], I = 32 %). Following hip arthroscopy, the CC group's mHHS was superior to that of the NC group ( = 0.001, MD = 2.05, 95%CI [0.83, 3.27], I = 42 %), HOS-ADL ( < 0.001, MD = 4.29, 95%CI [3.08, 5.50], I = 0 %). The capsular closure group had a reduced rate of postoperative complications ( = 0.001, OR = 0.21, 95%CI [0.08, 0.54], I = 0 %) and conversion to THA ( = 0.01, OR = 0.42, 95%CI [0.21, 0.83], I = 0 %) following hip arthroscopy than the non-closure group. The revision rate, VAS, and postoperative HOS-SSS did not significantly differ between these two groups (>0.05).
CONCLUSION
The current meta-analysis found that the closed group had a lower complication rate and considerably greater mHHS and HOS-ADL following surgery compared to the non-closed capsule group. Whether this is related to the continuous progress of biomechanical and clinical research techniques deserves our attention.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV, systematic review of Level I through Level III studies.
PubMed: 38803913
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31088 -
Cureus Apr 2024The purpose of this study is to compare failure rates among different techniques of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair for the treatment of proximal ACL... (Review)
Review
The purpose of this study is to compare failure rates among different techniques of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair for the treatment of proximal ACL ruptures. Meta-analysis and systematic review were completed, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Studies from Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed published between June 2011 and June 2022 reporting outcomes of primary ACL repair on proximal tears with a minimum two-year follow-up were included. Primary ACL repair was divided into dynamic, static, and non-augmented repair. The primary outcome was failure rates, and the secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and anterior tibial stability (ATT). Eighteen studies on primary ACL repair were included, with a total of 614 patients (ages ranging from 6 to 65, 60% male). Only two studies were level 1 randomized controlled clinical trials. The static repair had a failure rate of 33 out of 261 (12.6%), non-augmented was 17 out of 179 (9.4%), and dynamic repair was 31 out of 174 (17.8%); no statistically significant difference was found comparing the failure rates (p = 0.090). PROs using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores had weighted averages of 91.7 (95% confidence interval (CI): 89.6-93.8) and 94.7 (95% CI: 92.7-96.7), respectively. ATT had a weighted average of 1.668 mm (95% CI: 1.002-2.334). The primary findings of this paper include a 12.6% combined failure rate for primary proximal ACL repair with no significant difference in failure rate or PROs when accounting for the methodology of repair at a minimum two-year follow-up. It is important to note the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials, the heterogeneity of included studies, and the lack of long-term data. Despite these limitations, the findings of the current analysis suggest that primary repair may be a useful treatment option for indicated candidates with proximal ACL ruptures. Further long-term and higher-quality comparative studies on ACL reconstruction are warranted.
PubMed: 38803739
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.59124 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2024Smoking is a well-known cause of impairment in wound healing and postoperative outcomes; however, its effects on treating meniscus issues remain unclear. This study... (Review)
Review
Smoking is a well-known cause of impairment in wound healing and postoperative outcomes; however, its effects on treating meniscus issues remain unclear. This study assesses the relationship between smoking and meniscus treatment outcomes. PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 24 December 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies examining smoking's impact on patient outcomes regarding meniscus pathology. A secondary PubMed search targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the top ten orthopedic journals focusing on meniscus pathology and smoking as a demographic variable. Meta-analysis of six studies ( = 528) assessed meniscus failure rate based on smoking status. Eighteen observational studies ( = 8353 patients; 53.25% male; mean age: 51.35 ± 11.53 years; follow-up: 184.11 ± 117.34 months) were analyzed, covering meniscus repair, meniscectomy, allograft transplant, conservative care, and arthroscopy. Results showed four studies (36.36%) linked smoking with worse meniscus repair outcomes, while seven studies (63.64%) did not find significant associations. Meta-analysis from six studies showed no significant impact of smoking on repair failure ( = 0.118). Regarding meniscectomy, one study (33.33%) identified a significant association with smoking, but two did not. Only one (3.8%) of the RCTs in leading orthopedic journals included smoking as a factor. The evidence on smoking's effect on meniscus treatment is mixed, necessitating further investigation.
PubMed: 38792605
DOI: 10.3390/life14050584 -
PeerJ 2024We compared the effects of early and delayed rehabilitation on the function of patients after rotator cuff repair by meta-analysis to find effective interventions to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
We compared the effects of early and delayed rehabilitation on the function of patients after rotator cuff repair by meta-analysis to find effective interventions to promote the recovery of shoulder function.
METHODS
This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023466122). We manually searched the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the China VIP Database (VIP), and the Wanfang Database to evaluate the effect of early and delayed rehabilitation after arthroscopic shoulder cuff surgery on the recovery of shoulder joint function. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyze the extracted data. Then, the PEDro scale was employed to appraise the methodological quality of the included research.
RESULTS
This research comprised nine RCTs and 830 patients with rotator cuff injuries. According to the findings of the meta-analysis, there was no discernible difference between the early rehabilitation group and the delayed rehabilitation group at six and twelve months after the surgery in terms of the VAS score, SST score, follow-up rotator cuff healing rate, and the rotator cuff retear rate at the final follow-up. There was no difference in the ASES score between the early and delayed rehabilitation groups six months after the operation. However, although the ASES score in the early rehabilitation group differed significantly from that in the delayed rehabilitation group twelve months after the operation, according to the analysis of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), the results have no clinical significance.
CONCLUSIONS
The improvement in shoulder function following arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery does not differ clinically between early and delayed rehabilitation. When implementing rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair, it is essential to consider the paradoxes surrounding shoulder range of motion and tendon anatomic healing. A program that allows for flexible progression based on the patient's ability to meet predetermined clinical goals or criteria may be a better option.
Topics: Humans; Arthroscopy; Rotator Cuff Injuries; Recovery of Function; Rotator Cuff; Range of Motion, Articular; Time Factors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38784392
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17395 -
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Jul 2024Patellofemoral joint instability (PFJI) can surgically be treated with a multitude of approaches, depending on the underlying pathology. In the presence of increased... (Review)
Review
Promising results following derotational femoral osteotomy in patellofemoral instability with increased femoral anteversion: A systematic review on current indications, outcomes and complication rate.
PURPOSE
Patellofemoral joint instability (PFJI) can surgically be treated with a multitude of approaches, depending on the underlying pathology. In the presence of increased femoral anteversion, some authors have reported good results with a derotational distal femoral osteotomy (DeDFO). The purpose of the study was to investigate the indications, outcomes and complication rate of DeDFO for PFJI.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) by searching Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases through 1 December 2023. Included were levels 1-4 clinical studies of skeletally mature patients undergoing a DeDFO for PFJI irrespective of concomitant procedures. Study characteristics, indications, radiological and clinical outcomes, surgical technique and concomitant procedures, re-dislocation and complication rate were all analysed, as was methodological quality.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies including 310 patients (325 knees) were included. Three studies were cohort studies, all others were case series. The mean patient age across the studies was 22 years, and the mean follow-up was 29.4 months. Femoral anteversion cut-off was between 20° and 30°. Every study included at least one concurrent soft tissue, bony or combined procedure. Across all studies, one case of re-dislocation was reported (0.3%) and four implant or osteotomy-related complications (1.2%) were reported. All studies reported a statistically significant increase in clinical scores.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review of DeDFO for patellofemoral instability in the presence of increased femoral anteversion demonstrates promising clinical results and an extremely low dislocation and complication rate. The heterogeneity of the cut-off in anteversion and concomitant procedures, especially tibial tubercle osteotomy with seemingly identical results, indicates the need for high-quality evidence for treating patellofemoral instability. Based upon this systematic review, we strongly recommend that DeDFO be added to the 'menu à la carte' of PFJI.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III Systematic Review.
PubMed: 38774579
DOI: 10.1002/jeo2.12032