-
Arthroscopy : the Journal of... May 2024To assess the current scientific literature on the microbiome's relationship with knee osteoarthritis (OA), with specific focuses on the gut microbiome-joint axis and... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To assess the current scientific literature on the microbiome's relationship with knee osteoarthritis (OA), with specific focuses on the gut microbiome-joint axis and joint microbiome-joint axis.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant English-language clinical studies on the gut and/or joint microbiomes' association with knee OA in humans. Bias was evaluated using the methodological index for non-randomized studies score.
RESULTS
Thirty-five thousand bacterial species comprise the gut microbiome; approximately 90% are members of the phyla Bacteroides and Firmicutes. Symbiosis between the gut microbiome and host under normal physiological conditions positively affects host growth, development, immunity, and longevity. Gut microbiome imbalance can negatively influence various physiological processes, including immune response, inflammation, metabolism, and joint health including development of knee OA. In addition, next generation gene sequencing suggests the presence of microorganisms in the synovial fluid of osteoarthritic knees, and distinct microbiome profiles detected are presumed to play a role in the development of OA. With regard to the gut microbiome, consistent alterations in microbial composition between OA patients and controls are noted, in addition to several associations between certain gut bacteria with OA-related knee pain, patient-reported outcome measure performance, imaging findings, and changes in metabolic and inflammatory pathways. Regarding the joint microbiome, studies revealed increased levels of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and LPS-binding protein in synovial fluid are associated with activated macrophages, and correlated with worsened osteophyte severity, joint space narrowing, and pain scores in knee OA patients. In addition, studies demonstrated various microbial composition differences in OA patients compared to control, with certain joint microbes directly associated with OA pathogenesis, inflammation, and metabolic dysregulation.
CONCLUSIONS
The gut microbiome-joint axis and joint microbiome shows alterations in microbial composition between osteoarthritic patients and controls. These alterations are associated with perturbations of metabolic and inflammatory pathways, imaging findings, osteoarthritis-related pain, and patient reported outcome measure performance.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic Review; Level III.
PubMed: 38797504
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.05.010 -
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 -
The Orthopedic Clinics of North America Jul 2024The utilization of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is increasing, driving associated annual health care costs higher. Opting for outpatient over inpatient TSA may... (Review)
Review
The utilization of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is increasing, driving associated annual health care costs higher. Opting for outpatient over inpatient TSA may provide a solution by reducing costs. However, there is no single set of accepted patient selection criteria for outpatient TSA. Here, the authors identify and systematically review 14 articles to propose evidence-based criteria that merit postoperative admission. Together, the studies suggest that patients with limited ability to abmluate independently or a history of congestive heart failure may benefit from postoperative at least one night of hospital based monitoring and treatment.
Topics: Humans; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Shoulder; Patient Selection; Ambulatory Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 38782508
DOI: 10.1016/j.ocl.2023.12.002 -
The Journal of Hospital Infection May 2024We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the risk of infection following shoulder arthroscopy and to identify risk factors for infection. We systematically searched the... (Review)
Review
We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the risk of infection following shoulder arthroscopy and to identify risk factors for infection. We systematically searched the PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the reference lists of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses; manual searches were also performed. A random-effects model was employed to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs), based on sample size, the P-value of Egger's test and heterogeneity among studies. Of the 29,342 articles screened, 16 retrospective studies comprising 74,759 patients were included. High-quality evidence showed that patients with diabetes (OR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.20-1.41) or hypertension (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10-1.44) had a higher risk of infection, while moderate quality evidence showed that patients with obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m) (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.28-1.57), those who were male (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.12-2.44), those who had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥3 (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.02-3.99) and those who had a history of smoking (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.39-4.28) had a higher risk of infection. The meta-analysis revealed that there was no association between age, time of surgery, or alcohol consumption and infection. This meta-analysis identified six significant risk factors for infection following shoulder arthroscopy including diabetes, obesity, hypertension, male sex, ASA class, history of smoking. These patient-related risk factors may help identify postoperative patients at higher risk for infection following shoulder arthroscopy.
PubMed: 38782053
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2024.04.025 -
Arthroscopy : the Journal of... May 2024To (1) analyze trends in the publishing of statistical fragility index (FI)-based systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature, including the prevalence of... (Review)
Review
The Number of Patients Lost to Follow-Up May Exceed the Fragility Index of a Randomized Controlled Trial Without Reversing Statistical Significance: A Systematic Review and Statistical Model.
PURPOSE
To (1) analyze trends in the publishing of statistical fragility index (FI)-based systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature, including the prevalence of misleading or inaccurate statements related to the statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and patients lost to follow-up (LTF), and (2) determine whether RCTs with relatively "low" FIs are truly as sensitive to patients LTF as previously portrayed in the literature.
METHODS
All FI-based studies published in the orthopaedic literature were identified using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases. All articles involving application of the FI or reverse FI to study the statistical fragility of studies in orthopaedics were eligible for inclusion in the study. Study characteristics, median FIs and sample sizes, and misleading or inaccurate statements related to the FI and patients LTF were recorded. Misleading or inaccurate statements-defined as those basing conclusions of trial fragility on the false assumption that adding patients LTF back to a trial has the same statistical effect as existing patients in a trial experiencing the opposite outcome-were determined by 2 authors. A theoretical RCT with a sample size of 100, P = .006, and FI of 4 was used to evaluate the difference in effect on statistical significance between flipping outcome events of patients already included in the trial (FI) and adding patients LTF back to the trial to show the true sensitivity of RCTs to patients LTF.
RESULTS
Of the 39 FI-based studies, 37 (95%) directly compared the FI with the number of patients LTF. Of these 37 studies, 22 (59%) included a statement regarding the FI and patients LTF that was determined to be inaccurate or misleading. In the theoretical RCT, a reversal of significance was not observed until 7 patients LTF (nearly twice the FI) were added to the trial in the distribution of maximal significance reversal.
CONCLUSIONS
The claim that any RCT in which the number of patients LTF exceeds the FI could potentially have its significance reversed simply by maintaining study follow-ups is commonly inaccurate and prevalent in orthopaedic studies applying the FI. Patients LTF and the FI are not equivalent. The minimum number of patients LTF required to flip the significance of a typical RCT was shown to be greater than the FI, suggesting that RCTs with relatively low FIs may not be as sensitive to patients LTF as previously portrayed in the literature; however, only a holistic approach that considers the context in which the trial was conducted, potential biases, and study results can determine the merits of any particular RCT.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Surgeons may benefit from re-examining their interpretation of prior FI reviews that have made claims of substantial RCT fragility based on comparisons between the FI and patients LTF; it is possible the results are more robust than previously believed.
PubMed: 38777001
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.05.006 -
Arthroscopy : the Journal of... May 2024The purpose of this study was to evaluate and analyze the current literature regarding clinical outcomes following posterolateral corner reconstruction (PLCR) using... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and analyze the current literature regarding clinical outcomes following posterolateral corner reconstruction (PLCR) using fibular-based and tibial-based techniques.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes after PLCR. Embase, PubMed, and Scopus were searched from their respective inception through October 25, 2022. Studies containing patient-reported outcome scores of tibial and fibular-based PLCR were included. Outcomes collected from each study were summarized using t-tests for consistently reported Tegner, Lysholm, and IKDC scores.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies (16 with level of evidence IV, 6 with level III, and 2 with Level II) met the inclusion criteria and included 669 patients in total. Four studies comprising 111 patients directly compared the results of tibial- and fibular-based PLCR. Mean clinical follow-up across all studies was 3.3 years. The four studies that reported on both tibial and fibular-based PLCR were found to have no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes with p-values ranging from 0.0561 to 0.9881.
CONCLUSION
Analysis of the available literature regarding tibial- and fibular-based posterolateral corner reconstruction suggests no clinical differences.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic review of Level II-IV Studies.
PubMed: 38776999
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.05.008 -
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 -
Medicine May 2024The efficacy of fascia iliaca block (FIB) versus quadratus lumborum block (QLB) remains controversial for pain management of hip arthroplasty. We conduct a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of fascia iliaca block (FIB) versus quadratus lumborum block (QLB) remains controversial for pain management of hip arthroplasty. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of FIB versus QLB on the postoperative pain intensity of hip arthroplasty.
METHODS
We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases through July 2023 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of FIB versus QLB on pain control of hip arthroplasty. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model or fixed-effect model based on the heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials and 234 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with QLB for hip arthroscopy, FIB was associated with substantially lower pain scores at 2 hours (mean difference [MD] = -0.49; 95% CI = -0.63 to -0.35; P < .00001) and pain scores at 12 hours (MD = -0.81; 95% CI = -1.36 to -0.26; P = .004), but showed no impact on pain scores at 24 hours (MD = -0.21; 95% CI = -0.57 to 0.15; P = .25), time to first rescue analgesia (standard mean difference = 0.70; 95% CI = -0.59 to 1.99; P = .29), analgesic consumption (MD = -4.80; 95% CI = -16.57 to 6.97; P = .42), or nausea and vomiting (odd ratio = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.32-1.35; P = .25).
CONCLUSIONS
FIB may be better than QLB for pain control after hip arthroplasty, as evidenced by the lower pain scores at 2 and 24 hours.
Topics: Humans; Nerve Block; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Pain, Postoperative; Fascia; Pain Measurement; Abdominal Muscles; Pain Management
PubMed: 38758845
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038247 -
Orthopaedic Surgery Jul 2024Frozen shoulder (FS) is a painful and debilitating condition affecting the shoulder joint. When patients fail to improve after conservative treatments, operative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
OBJECTIVE
Frozen shoulder (FS) is a painful and debilitating condition affecting the shoulder joint. When patients fail to improve after conservative treatments, operative treatments including arthroscopic capsular release (ACR) and manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) are recommended. However, the comparison between these two interventions remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ACR and MUA for refractory FS.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies until December 10, 2023. Meta-analyses were conducted using Manager V.5.3.3. Pooled effect sizes were expressed as the weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
A total of eight comparative studies with 768 patients were included. Compared with MUA, ACR had statistically better Δ VAS (WMD, -0.44; 95% CI, -0.71 to -0.18; I = 6%; p = 0.001) at over 12-month follow-up, which did not reach the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Other outcomes regarding pain relief, function, and range of motion (ROM) improvements were not statistically different between the two groups at different follow-up timepoints. Compared with the MUA group, the ACR group had a significantly higher rate of severe complications (OR, 4.14; 95% CI, 1.01 to 16.94; I2 = 0%; p = 0.05), but comparable rates of mild complications and additional intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
In treating refractory FS, ACR demonstrated comparable pain relief, functional and ROM improvements, rates of mild complications and additional intervention but a higher risk of severe complications to MUA during short-term follow-up periods. Notably, ACR exhibited statistically superior improvement in the long-term pain relief compared to the MUA group, although it did not reach the MCID.
Topics: Humans; Bursitis; Arthroscopy; Joint Capsule Release; Manipulation, Orthopedic; Range of Motion, Articular
PubMed: 38747000
DOI: 10.1111/os.14077