-
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma... Aug 2023Ankle arthrodesis (AA) is often fixed using cannulated screws. The irritation from metalwork is a relatively common complication, but there is no consensus regarding the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Ankle arthrodesis (AA) is often fixed using cannulated screws. The irritation from metalwork is a relatively common complication, but there is no consensus regarding the need to remove the screws on a systematic basis. The aim of this study was to determine (1) the proportion of screws removed after AA and (2) whether predictors of screw removal could be identified.
METHODS
This PRISMA-compliant systematic review was part of a larger previous protocol registered on the PROSPERO platform. Multiple databases were searched including studies in which patients undergone AA using screws as exclusive fixation method were followed. Data were harvested regarding the cohort, the study design, the surgical technique, the nonunion and complication rate at the longest follow-up. Risk of bias was assessed using the modified Coleman Methodology Score (mCMS).
RESULTS
Forty-four series of patients from thirty-eight studies (1990 ankles, 1934 patients) were selected. The average follow-up was 40.8 months (range 12-110). In all studies, hardware was removed due to symptoms reported by patients and related to the screws. The pooled proportion of removal of metalwork was 3% (95% CI 2-4). The pooled proportion of fusion was 96% (95%CI 95-98), while the pooled proportion of complications and reoperations (excluding the removal of metalwork) stood at 15% (95% CI 11-18) and 3% (95% CI 2-4), respectively. The mean mCMS (50.8 ± 8.1, range 35-66) revealed only an overall fair quality of studies. The univariate analysis and the multivariate model showed that the year of publication (R = - 0.004; p = 0.01) and the number of screws (R = 0.08; p = 0.01) were associated with the screw removal rate. Specifically, we found that over time the removal rate decreased by 0.4% per year and that the use of three screws instead of two reduced the risk of removal of metalwork by 8%.
CONCLUSIONS
In this review, removal of metalwork after ankle arthrodesis using cannulated screws was needed in 3% of cases at an average follow-up of 40.8 months. It was indicated only in case of symptoms related to soft tissue irritation from screws. The use of three screws was paradoxically related to a reduced risk of removal of screws as compared to two-screw constructs.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV, systematic review of Level IV.
Topics: Humans; Ankle; Ankle Joint; Bone Screws; Arthrodesis; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36795152
DOI: 10.1007/s00402-023-04813-1 -
World Neurosurgery May 2024A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of cortical bone trajectory screws and traditional pedicle screws in lumbar fusion.
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of cortical bone trajectory screws and traditional pedicle screws in lumbar fusion.
METHODS
Randomized controlled studies and cohort studies on CBT versus pedicle screws in lumbar fusion were searched in CBM, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. The search period spanned from the establishment of the databases to December 2023. The Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were applied to assess the quality of the literature included. Clinical and imaging data as well as surgical outcomes, recovery and postoperative complications were extracted from the relevant literature.
RESULTS
A total of 6 randomized controlled trials and 26 cohort studies were included after screening by inclusion and exclusion criteria with a total of 2478 patients. The meta-analysis demonstrated significant discrepancies between the CBT and TPS groups in JOA score at 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up. Moreover, the TPS group exhibited a higher ODI at final follow-up, a greater VAS for low back pain at both 1 week and final follow-up, as well as a higher VAS for leg pain at 1 month. Differences were also noted in surgical and recovery outcomes. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in postoperative complications.
CONCLUSIONS
CBT and TPS have analogous safety profiles when applied to lumbar fusion, but the clinical efficacy of CBT is superior to that of TPS to some extent, and the procedure is less invasive with faster recovery.
PubMed: 38777322
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2024.05.090 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Aug 2020Dynamic hip screw (DHS) and cannulated screws (CS) are widely used for femoral neck fractures. However, there is no definite result as to which surgical method bring... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Dynamic hip screw (DHS) and cannulated screws (CS) are widely used for femoral neck fractures. However, there is no definite result as to which surgical method bring less complications. We performed this study to compare the complication (mortality, non-union, avascular necrosis (AVN), and revision) of DHS and CS for the treatment of femoral neck fractures patients.
METHODS
We searched Pubmed, Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other relevant studies related the comparison of DHS versus CS for femoral neck fractures from inception to Jan 7, 2020. The quality of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa (NOS), respectively. The meta-analysis was performed by the RevMan 5.2 software.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs and seven retrospective cohort studies were included for meta-analysis. CS was found to be superior to DHS with respect to AVN rate (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.08-1.99; p = 0.01, I = 0%). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to mortality, non-union, and revision (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
DHS and CS have similar complication including mortality, revision rate, and non-union, but CS has superior to DHS on ANV. However, further studies are required to provide more robust evidence owing to some limitations.
Topics: Bone Screws; Female; Femoral Neck Fractures; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Humans; Male; Postoperative Complications; Prosthesis Design; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32843048
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-020-01842-z -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Apr 2023Recently, some studies on the efficacy of the femoral neck system (FNS) in treating femoral neck fractures (FNFs) have been published. Therefore, a systematic review was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Recently, some studies on the efficacy of the femoral neck system (FNS) in treating femoral neck fractures (FNFs) have been published. Therefore, a systematic review was performed to clarify the efficacy and safety of FNS versus cannulated screws (CS) for the treatment of FNFs.
METHOD
The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies comparing FNS and CS fixations in FNFs. Intraoperative indicators, postoperative clinical indicators, postoperative complications, and postoperative scores were compared between the implants.
RESULTS
A total of eight studies were included in the study, involving 448 FNFs patients. The results showed that patients in FNS group were significantly lower than the CS group in the number of X-ray exposures (WMD = -10.16; 95% CI, -11.44 to -8.88; P < 0.001; I = 0%), fracture healing time (WMD = -1.54; 95% CI, -2.38 to -0.70; P < 0.001; I = 92%), length of femoral neck shortening (WMD = -2.01; 95% CI, -3.11 to -0.91; P < 0.001; I = 0%), femoral head necrosis (OR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.83; P = 0.02; I = 0%), implant failure/cutout (OR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.82; P = 0.02; I = 0%), and Visual Analog Scale Score (WMD = -1.27; 95% CI, -2.51 to -0.04; P = 0.04; I = 91%). And the Harris Score was significantly higher in the FNS group than in the CS group (WMD = 4.15; 95% CI, 1.00 to 7.30; P = 0.01; I = 89%).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this meta-analysis, FNS shows better clinical efficacy and safety in treating FNFs compared to CS. However, due to the limited quality and number of included studies and the high heterogeneity of the meta-analysis; large samples and multicenter RCTs are needed to confirm this conclusion in the future.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
II, Systematic review and Meta-analysis.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021283646.
Topics: Humans; Femur Neck; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Bone Screws; Femoral Neck Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37055749
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06378-x -
Journal of Orthopaedics and... Oct 2022Robotic surgery (RS) may offer benefits compared with freehand/conventional surgery (FS) in the treatment of patients with spinal disease. The aim of this study was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Robotic surgery (RS) may offer benefits compared with freehand/conventional surgery (FS) in the treatment of patients with spinal disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RS versus FS in spinal fusion.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Data analysis and risk of bias assessment were analysed using REVMAN V5.3.
RESULTS
We found 11 randomised clinical trials involving 817 patients (FS: 408, RS: 409). The main diagnosis was degenerative spine disease. SpineAssist, Renaissance (Mazor Robotics), Tianji Robot and TiRobot robots (TINAVI Medical Technologies) were used. Pedicle screw placement within the safety zone (grades A + B according to the Gertzbein and Robbins scale) ranged from 93% to 100% in FS versus 85-100% in RS (relative risk 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.03, p = 0.14). Regarding intervention time, the meta-analysis showed a mean difference (MD) of 6.45 min (95% CI -13.59 to 26.49, p = 0.53). Mean hospital stay was MD of -0.36 days (95% CI -1.03 to 0.31, p = 0.30) with no differences between groups. Contradictory results were found regarding fluoroscopy time, although there seems to be a lower radiation dose in RS versus FS (p < 0.05). Regarding safety, the studies included surgical revision frequency.
CONCLUSIONS
No conclusive results were found suggesting that there are benefits in using RS over FS for spinal fusion. Further research with adequate patient selection, robot type and quality-of-life variables is needed.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
level 1.
Topics: Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Pedicle Screws; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics; Spinal Diseases; Spinal Fusion; Spine
PubMed: 36242652
DOI: 10.1186/s10195-022-00669-0 -
EFORT Open Reviews Apr 2023The biomechanical characteristics of different techniques to perform the modified Lapidus procedure are controversial, discussing the issue of stability, rigidity, and... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The biomechanical characteristics of different techniques to perform the modified Lapidus procedure are controversial, discussing the issue of stability, rigidity, and compression forces from a biomechanical point of view. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the available options to identify whether there is a procedure providing superior biomechanical results.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed by screening PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases until September 2021. There was a wide heterogeneity of the available data in the different studies. Load to failure, stiffness, and compression forces were summarized and evaluated.
RESULTS
Seventeen biomechanical studies were retrieved - ten cadaveric and seven polyurethane foam (artificial bone) studies. Fixation methods ranged from the classic crossed screw approach (n = 5) to plates (dorsomedial and plantar) with or without compression screws (n = 11). Newer implants such as intramedullary stabilization screws (n = 1) and memory alloy staples (n = 2) were investigated.
CONCLUSION
The two crossed screws construct is still a biomechanical option; however, according to this systematic review, there is strong evidence that a plate-screw construct provides superior stability especially in combination with a compression screw. There is also evidence about plate position and low evidence about compression screw position. Plantar plates seem to be advantageous from a biomechanical point of view, whereas compression screws could be better when positioned outside the plate. Overall, this review suggests the biomechanical advantages of using a combination of locking plates with a compression screw.
PubMed: 37097047
DOI: 10.1530/EOR-22-0069 -
Shoulder & Elbow Apr 2021New types of glenoid bone block fixation, involving suture buttons, suture anchors or even implant-free impaction of the graft, have been recently introduced. In...
BACKGROUND
New types of glenoid bone block fixation, involving suture buttons, suture anchors or even implant-free impaction of the graft, have been recently introduced. In contrast to screws which allow for a rigid fixation of the bone block, these alternative procedures provide a non-rigid type of fixation.
METHODS
Two reviewers independently conducted the search in a systematic way (according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) using the MEDLINE/PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. These databases were queried with the terms "Latarjet" OR "Eden-Hybbinette" OR "bone block" AND "anterior" AND "shoulder" AND "instability."
RESULTS
Eight out of the 325 initial studies were finally chosen according to our inclusion-exclusion criteria. In total, 750 patients were included in this review. The overall anterior instability recurrence rate for patients treated with non-rigid fixation was 2.6%, while the overall rate of non-union or graft osteolysis was 5.4%.
CONCLUSIONS
Regardless of the graft type, bone block non-rigid fixation showed satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability with substantial glenoid bone deficiency. Furthermore, non-rigid fixation resulted in adequate bone graft healing and osseous incorporation. Lastly, given the relative lack of data, further prospective controlled studies are required to assess bone block non-rigid fixation procedures in comparison with the traditional rigid (with screws) fixation techniques.
LEVEL
Systematic review, IV.
PubMed: 33897848
DOI: 10.1177/1758573219872512 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2009Bioresorbable implants for musculoskeletal injuries involving bone and ligaments in adults might have significant advantages compared to the conventionally used... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bioresorbable implants for musculoskeletal injuries involving bone and ligaments in adults might have significant advantages compared to the conventionally used non-resorbable metal implants because they lead to a gradual transfer of the mechanical load from the implant to the healing bone and do not require a secondary removal operation. Tissue reactions may present a problem and bioresorbable screws are mechanically not as strong as their metal counterparts.
OBJECTIVES
To compare bioresorbable implants to non-resorbable implants with respect to functional outcome, wound infections, other complications and reoperation rate,in the fixation of bone fractures or re-attachment of soft tissue to bone.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (March 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2004), EMBASE (1988 to February 2004), BL Inside (to February 2004), SIGLE (to February 2004), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials at http//:controlled-trials.com/, and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials, comparing bioresorbable osteosynthesis with metal osteosynthesis (including titanium and stainless steel implants) were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were pooled where relevant and possible. Sub-analyses for specific type of fractures and for specific type of tissue reactions were performed. Requests for more information were sent to trialists.
MAIN RESULTS
No significant difference between the bioresorbable and other implants could be demonstrated with respect to functional outcome, infections and other complications. Reoperation rates were lower in some of the groups of people treated with bioresorbable implants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In a selected group of compliant patients with simple fractures, the use of bioresorbable fixation devices might be advantageous.
Topics: Absorption; Adult; Biocompatible Materials; Device Removal; Fracture Fixation; Humans; Ligaments; Musculoskeletal System; Prostheses and Implants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19160235
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004324.pub3 -
International Journal of Surgery... Oct 2015Intramedullary nails (IM nails) now include dedicated fibular nails for lateral malleolus fractures. This study reviewed nail versus plate for fixation of unstable ankle... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
INTRODUCTION
Intramedullary nails (IM nails) now include dedicated fibular nails for lateral malleolus fractures. This study reviewed nail versus plate for fixation of unstable ankle fractures.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of published reports.
RESULTS
Four studies met the inclusion criteria, including 375 patients. Two included studies were randomised-control studies and two were non-randomised case series. The implants investigated included: Knowles Pins, Fibular Nails, Rush Rods and Inyo Nails. The overall risk of bias was high. Pooled data showed a statistically significant lower risk of wound infection (RR 0.10; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.44), symptomatic hardware (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.35) and removal of hardware (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.81) with intramedullary nail fixation.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a paucity of literature upon which to draw reliable conclusions. There was a high risk of bias towards favourable outcomes for the nail group. It would appear that intramedullary nail fixation of distal fibular fractures can outperform conventional fixation with plate and screws. There is a need for adequately powered, scientific trials.
Topics: Ankle Fractures; Bone Nails; Bone Plates; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Humans
PubMed: 26255000
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.07.697 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Aug 2022: Adequate initial fixation of the uncemented acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty is necessary to achieve long-term survival. Although screw fixation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: Adequate initial fixation of the uncemented acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty is necessary to achieve long-term survival. Although screw fixation contributes to improved cup stability, there is currently no consensus on the use of this method. This study aimed to assess the existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of cup fixation in total hip arthroplasty without screws. : We searched the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify RCTs published before February 2022. Primary outcomes were reoperation, cup migration, and Harris Hip Score. Secondary outcomes were the presence of a radiolucent line in the acetabular region, translation and rotation movement, and polyethylene wear. We conducted meta-analyses using the random-effects models. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias for outcomes of interest; the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to summarize the body of evidence. : We included six reports from four studies. Total hip arthroplasty without screw fixation to the acetabular cup had little to no effect on reoperation (pooled relative risk, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-6.68; = 0%), cup migration (pooled relative risk, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-10.33; = 1%), Harris Hip Score (mean difference, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, -1.31-3.70; = 0%), radiolucent line (pooled relative risk, 5.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-109.35), translation and rotation of all axes, and polyethylene wear (mean difference, 0.01; 95% confidence interval, -0.01-0.04; = 0%), with very low certainty of evidence on all measures. : The efficacy of acetabular cups without screw fixation in total hip arthroplasty remains uncertain, suggesting the need for prudent clinical application. Further large-scale, well-designed studies with low risk of bias are required.
Topics: Acetabulum; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Bone Screws; Follow-Up Studies; Hip Prosthesis; Humans; Polyethylenes; Prosthesis Failure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation
PubMed: 36013524
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58081058