-
Medicine Mar 2021Ankle fusion is the primary treatment for advanced ankle arthritis. With the advancement of arthroscopy technology, ankle arthroscopy fusion has shown many advantages... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ankle fusion is the primary treatment for advanced ankle arthritis. With the advancement of arthroscopy technology, ankle arthroscopy fusion has shown many advantages over traditional surgery. However, there are few related studies globally, and evidence-based medicine is needed to verify the reliability and feasibility of ankle arthroscopy fusion.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis and open ankle arthrodesis.
METHODS
We searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI], Wanfang Database, and VIP Database for published prospective or retrospective controlled studies of arthroscopic-assisted ankle fusion in the treatment of advanced ankle arthritis. The dates were limited from the construction of the library to June 30, 2019. Literature was included based on the principles and methods of evidence-based medicine. Literature retrieval, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent reviewers using the Cochrane 5.1 risk bias assessment tool. The methodological bias of the literature was evaluated, and a meta-analysis was using by RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of 18 studies and 1102 patients were included in the study, including 551 in the arthroscopic surgery group and 551 in the open surgery group. Arthroscopy-assisted surgery for advanced ankle arthritis was more effective than open surgery in terms of fusion rate (odd ratio[OR] = 3.32, 95% confidence interval[CI]:2.16, 5.10), fusion time (mean difference[MD] = -2.31, 95% CI:-4.63, -2.21), intraoperative blood loss (MD = -43.37, 95%CI: -48.49, -38.25), hospital stay (MD = -1.80, 95%CI: -2.28, -1.33), and visual analog scale score (MD = -1.75, 95%CI: -2.04, -1.46). In addition, rate of complications (OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.21, 0.52) was superior to open ankle fusion (P < .00001).
CONCLUSION
Arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis has more advantages than open ankle arthrodesis in improving the fusion rate and reducing complications, which is worthy of clinical application.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020195727.
Topics: Ankle Joint; Arthrodesis; Arthroscopy; Blood Loss, Surgical; Feasibility Studies; Humans; Length of Stay; Osteoarthritis; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Reproducibility of Results; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33725876
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024998 -
PloS One 2012To estimate the effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) compared to anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) for patient-important... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) compared to anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) for patient-important outcomes for single-level cervical spondylosis.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register for Randomized Controlled Trials, BIOSIS and LILACS), archives of spine meetings and bibliographies of relevant articles.
STUDY SELECTION
We included RCTs of ACDF versus ACDA in adult patients with single-level cervical spondylosis reporting at least one of the following outcomes: functionality, neurological success, neck pain, arm pain, quality of life, surgery for adjacent level degeneration (ALD), reoperation and dysphonia/dysphagia. We used no language restrictions. We performed title and abstract screening and full text screening independently and in duplicate.
DATA SYNTHESIS
We used random-effects model to pool data using mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We used GRADE to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome.
RESULTS
Of 2804 citations, 9 articles reporting on 9 trials (1778 participants) were eligible. ACDA is associated with a clinically significant lower incidence of neurologic failure (RR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.37-0.75, p = 0.0004) and improvement in the Neck pain visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD = 6.56, 95% CI = 3.22-9.90, p = 0.0001; Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) = 2.5. ACDA is associated with a statistically but not clinically significant improvement in Arm pain VAS and SF-36 physical component summary. ACDA is associated with non-statistically significant higher improvement in the Neck Disability Index Score and lower incidence of ALD requiring surgery, reoperation, and dysphagia/dysphonia.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no strong evidence to support the routine use of ACDA over ACDF in single-level cervical spondylosis. Current trials lack long-term data required to assess safety as well as surgery for ALD. We suggest that ACDA in patients with single level cervical spondylosis is an option although its benefits and indication over ACDF remain in question.
Topics: Arthroplasty; Cervical Vertebrae; Diskectomy; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Fusion; Spondylosis
PubMed: 22912869
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043407 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2023Although open surgery is the conventional option for ankle arthritis, there are some reports in the literature regarding the use of the arthroscopy procedure with... (Review)
Review
Although open surgery is the conventional option for ankle arthritis, there are some reports in the literature regarding the use of the arthroscopy procedure with outstanding results. The primary purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the effect of the surgery technique (open-ankle arthrodesis vs. arthroscopy) in patients with ankle osteoarthritis. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched until 10 April 2023. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias and grading of the recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation system for each outcome. The between-study variance was estimated using a random-effects model. A total of 13 studies (including = 994 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis results revealed a nom-significant ( = 0.072) odds ratio (OR) of 0.54 (0.28-1.07) for the fusion rate. Regarding operation time, a non-significant difference ( = 0.573) among both surgical techniques was found (mean differences (MD) = 3.40 min [-11.08 to 17.88]). However, hospital length stay and overall complications revealed significant differences (MD = 2.29 days [0.63 to 3.95], = 0.017 and OR = 0.47 [0.26 to 0.83], = 0.016), respectively. Our findings showed a non-statistically significant fusion rate. On the other hand, operation time was similar among both surgical techniques, without significant differences. Nevertheless, lower hospital stay was found in patients that were operated on with arthroscopy. Finally, for the outcome of overall complications, the ankle arthroscopy technique was a protective factor in comparison with open surgery.
PubMed: 37240680
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12103574 -
Orthopaedic Surgery Apr 2020While osteoarthritis is a common degenerative disease, ankle osteoarthritis is a subdivision that has received little attention. Two effective ways to treat... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparison of the Efficiency and Safety of Total Ankle Replacement and Ankle Arthrodesis in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
While osteoarthritis is a common degenerative disease, ankle osteoarthritis is a subdivision that has received little attention. Two effective ways to treat osteoarthritis of the ankle are total ankle replacement (TAR) and ankle arthrodesis (AAD). Whether TAR or AAD is more beneficial for treatment is controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficiency (clinical outcome and patient satisfaction) and safety (complications and survival) of these two procedures. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was performed as a guideline for this study. Three electronic databases, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, were searched up to May 2019, with no language restrictions. Prospective or retrospective comparative studies were identified. The outcomes included clinical outcome, patient satisfaction, complications, and survival. Review Manager (Revman) 5.3 software was used to conduct the data analysis. We only selected literature from the past 5 years (no earlier than 2015). Seven comparative studies were included. There were six cohort studies and one cross-sectional study. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of cohort studies, and The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) checklist was chosen to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies. No significant difference was observed for efficiency and safety. Clinical outcome was included in five studies with four different scoring systems. Two of them used the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) questionnaire scores to assess the two procedures (mean difference, -4.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.37-2.85; P = 0.24; I = 1%). Patient satisfaction (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.65-1.40; P = 0.82; I = 54%), complications (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.16-8.21; P = 0.89; I = 84%), and survival (RR, 1.91; 95% CI, 0.33-11.08; P = 0.47; I = 90%) showed no significant difference between the TAR group and the AAD group. This meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between TAR and AAD in clinical outcome, patient satisfaction, complications, and survival. This revealed that TAR and AAD could appear to have similar results in these aspects. Therefore, the present results are not sufficient to conclude which of these two methods is better. Further studies are needed to obtain more clues.
Topics: Ankle Joint; Arthrodesis; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Ankle; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Patient Satisfaction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32227465
DOI: 10.1111/os.12635 -
Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics Jan 2023There is currently a scarcity of information and consensus for transportal (arthroscopic or fluoroscopic) joint preparation during tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) fusion, and...
BACKGROUND
There is currently a scarcity of information and consensus for transportal (arthroscopic or fluoroscopic) joint preparation during tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) fusion, and therefore this review aims to summarize the available techniques and to evaluate the outcomes after this procedure.
METHODS
A systematic electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed for all English-language studies published from their inception to April 4, 2022. All articles addressing arthroscopy in TTC nailing were eligible for inclusion. The PRISMA Checklist guided the reporting and data abstraction. Descriptive statistics are presented.
RESULT
A total of 5 studies with 65 patients were included for analysis. All studies used arthroscopic portals for tibiotalar and subtalar joint preparation (in 4 studies) prior to TTC nailing, with 4 studies using an arthroscope and 1 study using fluoroscopy. The overall major complication rate was 13.8%; however, there was only 1 instance of deep wound infection (1.5%) and 4 instances of surgical site infections (6.2%). Full fusion was achieved in 86% of patients with an average time to fusion of 12.9 weeks. The mean American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score preoperatively was 34.0 and postoperatively was 70.5.
CONCLUSION
Although limited by the number of studies, transportal joint preparation during TTC nail ankle fusion is associated with good rates of complications and successful fusion.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III, systematic review of Level III-IV studies.
PubMed: 36891124
DOI: 10.1177/24730114231156422 -
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery Sep 2015A systematic literature review of interspinous dynamic stabilization, including DIAM, Wallis, Coflex, and X-STOP, was conducted to assess its safety and efficacy. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A systematic literature review of interspinous dynamic stabilization, including DIAM, Wallis, Coflex, and X-STOP, was conducted to assess its safety and efficacy.
METHODS
The search was done in Korean and English, by using eight domestic databases which included KoreaMed and international databases, such as Ovid Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A total of 306 articles were identified, but the animal studies, preclinical studies, and studies that reported the same results were excluded. As a result, a total of 286 articles were excluded and the remaining 20 were included in the final assessment. Two assessors independently extracted data from these articles using predetermined selection criteria. Qualities of the articles included were assessed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN).
RESULTS
The complication rate of interspinous dynamic stabilization has been reported to be 0% to 32.3% in 3- to 41-month follow-up studies. The complication rate of combined interspinous dynamic stabilization and decompression treatment (32.3%) was greater than that of decompression alone (6.5%), but no complication that significantly affected treatment results was found. Interspinous dynamic stabilization produced slightly better clinical outcomes than conservative treatments for spinal stenosis. Good outcomes were also obtained in single-group studies. No significant difference in treatment outcomes was found, and the studies compared interspinous dynamic stabilization with decompression or fusion alone.
CONCLUSIONS
No particular problem was found regarding the safety of the technique. Its clinical outcomes were similar to those of conventional techniques, and no additional clinical advantage could be attributed to interspinous dynamic stabilization. However, few studies have been conducted on the long-term efficacy of interspinous dynamic stabilization. Thus, the authors suggest further clinical studies be conducted to validate the theoretical advantages and clinical efficacy of this technique.
Topics: Decompression, Surgical; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Spinal Fusion; Spinal Stenosis
PubMed: 26330954
DOI: 10.4055/cios.2015.7.3.323 -
Surgical Neurology International 2022Dropped head syndrome (DHS) is uncommon and involves severe weakness of neck-extensor muscles resulting in a progressive reducible cervical kyphosis. The first-line... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dropped head syndrome (DHS) is uncommon and involves severe weakness of neck-extensor muscles resulting in a progressive reducible cervical kyphosis. The first-line management consists of medical treatment targeted at diagnosing underlying pathologies. However, the surgical management of DHS has not been well studied.
METHODS
Here, we systematically reviewed the PubMed and Cochrane databases for DHS using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All relevant articles up to March 31, 2022, were analyzed. The patient had to be ≥18 years with DHS and had to have undergone surgery with outcomes data available. Outcomes measurements included neurological status, rate of failure (RF), horizontal gaze, and complications.
RESULTS
A total of 22 articles selected for this study identified 54 patients who averaged 68.9 years of age. Cervical arthrodesis without thoracic extension was performed in seven patients with a RF of 71%. Cervicothoracic arthrodesis was performed in 46 patients with an RF of 13%. The most chosen upper level of fusion was C2 in 63% of cases, and the occiput was included only in 13% of patients. All patients neurologically stabilized or improved, while 75% of undergoing anterior procedures exhibited postoperative dysphagia and/or airway-related complications.
CONCLUSION
The early surgery for patients with DHS who demonstrate neurological compromise or progressive deformity is safe and effective and leads to excellent outcomes.
PubMed: 35855142
DOI: 10.25259/SNI_456_2022 -
Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 2019Multiple studies have compared primary arthrodesis versus open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) for surgical treatment of fractures of the Lisfranc joint, but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Multiple studies have compared primary arthrodesis versus open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) for surgical treatment of fractures of the Lisfranc joint, but their results have been inconsistent. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical efficacy of arthrodesis versus ORIF for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries.
METHODS
Through searching the Embase, PubMed, PMC, CINAHL, PQDT, and Cochrane Library databases (from July 1998 to July 2018), we identified five case-controlled trials and two randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical efficacy of primary arthrodesis and ORIF for treating Lisfranc injuries. The extracted data were analyzed using Review manager 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Through comparisons of data for primary arthrodesis and ORIF groups, we found no significant differences in the anatomic reduction rate, revision surgery rate, and total rate of complications between the different treatment approaches. However, arthrodesis was associated with a significantly better American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, return to duty rate, and visual analog scale score with a lower incidence of hardware removal compared with ORIF.
CONCLUSIONS
For the treatment for Lisfranc injuries, primary arthrodesis was superior to ORIF based on a higher AOFAS score, better return to duty rate, lower postoperative pain, and lower requirement for internal fixation removal. Further evidence from future randomized controlled trials with higher quality and larger sample sizes is needed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Arthrodesis; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Ligaments, Articular; Metatarsophalangeal Joint; Open Fracture Reduction; Recovery of Function; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31036779
DOI: 10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_414_18 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2024The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the outcomes of knee arthrodesis (KA) after periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee. Differences in... (Review)
Review
The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the outcomes of knee arthrodesis (KA) after periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee. Differences in clinical outcomes and complication rates among the intramedullary nailing (IMN), external fixation (EF), and compression plating (CP) procedures were compared. A total of 23 studies were included. Demographics, microbiological data, types of implants, surgical techniques with complications, reoperations, fusion, and amputation rates were reported. A total of 787 patients were evaluated, of whom 601 (76.4%), 166 (21%), and 19 (2.4%) underwent IMN, EF, and CP, respectively. The most common causative pathogen was (). Fusion occurred in 71.9%, 78.8%, and 92.3% of the patients after IMN, EF, and CP, respectively, and no statistically significant difference was found. Reinfection rates were 14.6%, 15.1%, and 10.5% after IMN, EF, and CP, respectively, and no statistically significant difference was found. Conversion to amputation occurred in 4.3%, 5%, and 15.8% of patients after IMN, EF, and CP, respectively; there was a higher rate after CP than after EF. The IMN technique is the most common option used for managing PJI with KA. No differences in terms of fusion, reinfection, or conversion-to-amputation rates were reported between IMN and EF. CP is rarely used, and the high amputation rate represents an important limitation of this technique.
PubMed: 38610226
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12070804 -
Shoulder & Elbow Apr 2020Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) is a rare condition associated with selective weakness of the muscles of the upper arm, face, and shoulder girdle,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) is a rare condition associated with selective weakness of the muscles of the upper arm, face, and shoulder girdle, negatively affecting daily activities. Scapulothoracic arthrodesis may restore shoulder function and improve quality of life. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the outcomes and complications of scapulothoracic arthrodesis in FSHD patients.
METHODS
Medline, Pubmed, and Embase were systematically searched. Studies were included if they described scapulothoracic arthrodesis in FSHD with follow-up, and outcomes were adequately reported. Thirteen eligible articles reported the outcomes of 199 arthrodesis in 130 patients.
RESULTS
The mean gain of shoulder forward elevation and abduction were 45° (p < 0.05) and 40° (p < 0.05), respectively. There was an overall cosmetic satisfaction and improved performance of daily activities. There is limited and heterogeneous data on changes in pulmonary function, but such changes are clinically insignificant. The rate of complications was 41% of which 10% were serious, requiring an intervention or re-admission. The most common complications were hardware failure (8%), non-union (6%), and pneumothorax (5%).
DISCUSSION
Scapulothoracic arthrodesis improved cosmesis, performance of daily activities and shoulder motion with no clinically significant loss of pulmonary function. The complication rate is high, and some are potentially serious.
PubMed: 32313557
DOI: 10.1177/1758573219866195