-
JMIR Perioperative Medicine Jun 2022Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and isometric exercise training (IET) interventions are relatively new approaches to maintain physical functioning, alleviate pain,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and isometric exercise training (IET) interventions are relatively new approaches to maintain physical functioning, alleviate pain, prevent joint stiffness and muscular atrophy, and positively influence other postoperative care outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this review was to identify the impacts of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) and IET and, more specifically, their combination, which have not previously been assessed to our knowledge.
METHODS
Studies were identified by searching the PubMed and Cochrane databases within the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) algorithm format and using relevant keyword combinations, which resulted in 39 studies meeting the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
In general, MBI was shown to positively impact both pain relief and physical functioning, while IET positively impacted physical functioning. Numerous other benefits, including improved quality of life and decreased postoperative opioid use, were also described from both interventions; however, further research is needed to confirm these findings as well as to determine other possible benefits. No studies were found that combined MBI and IET.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite many positive results from each individual intervention, there is a lack of information about how the combination of MBI and IET might impact postoperative care. The combination of these two interventions might prove to be more effective than each individual intervention alone, and the findings from this review show that they could even be complementary. Going forward, research should be expanded to study the possible benefits of the combination of MBI and IET in postoperative care routines as well as other possible combinations.
PubMed: 35687415
DOI: 10.2196/34651 -
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Feb 2023Adhesive capsulitis is clinically characterized by the gradual progressive painful loss of active and passive motion caused by the formation of adhesions of the joint... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Adhesive capsulitis is clinically characterized by the gradual progressive painful loss of active and passive motion caused by the formation of adhesions of the joint capsule. Adhesive Capsulitis of the Hip (ACH) is not a well-explored clinical condition when compared to adhesive capsulitis of shoulder because of the underdiagnosis and rarity of this condition
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Cochrane, Scopus, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for original studies on ACH till December 2021 following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. Year of publication, authors, number of cases, baseline characteristics of the studies, causes described, presentation, associated conditions, method of diagnosis, treatment to be given, functional outcomes, and complications was extracted from each study.
RESULTS
16 articles were included in this review. 3 of the included studies were retrospective case-control studies, 6 were case series and the remaining 7 were case reports. A total of 224 ACH cases were recorded. Pain and stiffness of the hips were the most common clinical features. Investigations like serology, radiograph, and MRI have been used to rule out other conditions. Arthrography has been used to confirm the diagnosis in 7 studies. Spontaneous recovery is expected in one to two years. Management has been in the form of physiotherapy, intra-articular injection, and arthroscopy.
CONCLUSION
Literature on ACH is limited because of the rarity of the condition. The disease has a favorable prognosis with the possibility of spontaneous recovery. Physiotherapy has been the first line of management. Intractable cases require surgical intervention.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-022-00808-z.
PubMed: 36777126
DOI: 10.1007/s43465-022-00808-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic auto-immune disorder that causes widespread and persistent inflammation of the synovial lining of joints and tendon sheaths. Presently, there is no cure for rheumatoid arthritis and treatment focuses on managing symptoms such as pain, stiffness and mobility, with the aim of achieving stable remission and improving mobility. Celecoxib is a selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for treatment of people with rheumatoid arthritis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of celecoxib in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal) to May 18, 2017. We also searched the reference and citation lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral celecoxib (200 mg and 400 mg daily) versus no intervention, placebo or a traditional NSAID (tNSAID) in people with confirmed rheumatoid arthritis, of any age and either sex. We excluded studies with fewer than 50 participants in each arm or had durations of fewer than four weeks treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with durations of 4 to 24 weeks, published between 1998 and 2014 that involved a total of 3988 adults (mean age = 54 years), most of whom were women (73%). Participants had rheumatoid arthritis for an average of 9.2 years. All studies were assessed at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, evidence was assessed as moderate-to-low quality. Five studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Celecoxib versus placeboWe included two studies (N = 873) in which participants received 200 mg daily or 400 mg daily or placebo. Participants who received celecoxib showed significant clinical improvement compared with those receiving placebo (15% absolute improvement; 95% CI 7% to 25%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.86; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 2 studies, 873 participants; moderate to low quality evidence).Participants who received celecoxib reported less pain than placebo-treated people (11% absolute improvement; 95% CI 8% to 14%; NNTB = 4, 95% CI 3 to 6; 1 study, 706 participants) but results were inconclusive for improvement in physical function (MD -0.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.10; 1 study, 706 participants).In the celecoxib group, 15/293 participants developed ulcers, compared with 4/99 in the placebo group (Peto OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.63; 1 study, 392 participants; low quality evidence). Nine (of 475) participants in the celecoxib group developed short-term serious adverse events, compared with five (of 231) in the placebo group (Peto OR 0.87 (0.28 to 2.69; 1 study, 706 participants; low quality evidence).There were fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (163/475) compared with placebo (130/231) (22% absolute change; 95% CI 16% to 27%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; 1 study, 706 participants).Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke) were not reported. However, regulatory agencies warn of increased cardiovascular event risk associated with celecoxib. Celecoxib versus tNSAIDsSeven studies (N = 2930) compared celecoxib and tNSAIDs (amtolmetin guacyl, diclofenac, ibuprofen, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen, pelubiprofen); one study included comparisons of both placebo and tNSAIDs (N = 1149).There was a small improvement, which may not be clinically significant, in numbers of participants achieving ACR20 criteria response in the celecoxib group compared to tNSAIDs (4% absolute improvement; 95% CI 0% less improvement to 8% more improvement; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; 4 studies, 1981 participants). There was a lack of evidence of difference between participants in the celecoxib and tNSAID groups in terms of pain or physical function. Results were assessed at moderate-to-low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency).People who received celecoxib had a lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers ≥ 3 mm (34/870) compared with those who received tNSAIDs (116/698). This corresponded to 12% absolute change (95% CI 11% to 13%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.32; 5 studies, 1568 participants; moderate quality evidence). There were 7% fewer withdrawals among people who received celecoxib (95% CI 4% to 9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86; 6 studies, 2639 participants).Results were inconclusive for short-term serious adverse events and cardiovascular events (low quality evidence). There were 17/918 serious adverse events in people taking celecoxib compared to 42/1236 among people who received placebo (Peto OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28; 5 studies, 2154 participants). Cardiovascular events were reported in both celecoxib and placebo groups in one study (149 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Celecoxib may improve clinical symptoms, alleviate pain and contribute to little or no difference in physical function compared with placebo. Celecoxib was associated with fewer numbers of participant withdrawals. Results for incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and short-term serious adverse events were uncertain; however, there were few reported events for either.Celecoxib may slightly improve clinical symptoms compared with tNSAIDs. Results for reduced pain and improved physical function were uncertain. Particpants taking celecoxib had lower incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers (≥ 3 mm) and there were fewer withdrawals from trials. Results for cardiovascular events and short-term serious adverse events were also uncertain.Uncertainty about the rate of cardiovascular events between celecoxib and tNSAIDs could be due to risk of bias; another factor is that these were small, short-term trials. It has been reported previously that both celecoxib and tNSAIDs increase cardiovascular event rates. Our confidence in results about harms is therefore low. Larger head-to-head clinical trials comparing celecoxib to other tNSAIDs is needed to better inform clinical practice.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Celecoxib; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Ulcer; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28597983
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012095.pub2 -
PloS One 2023Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an inflammatory, systemic and chronic disease that mainly affects the joints. It is characterized mainly by pain, edema and joint stiffness,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an inflammatory, systemic and chronic disease that mainly affects the joints. It is characterized mainly by pain, edema and joint stiffness, which can lead to significant loss of functional capacity and quality of life. Several physical therapy resources are used in the treatment of AR, such as low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and its analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects. However, the efficacy of LLLT in AR is still controversial. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of low-level laser therapy in adults with RA. Methods and findings: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PEDro, LILACS, IBECS, CUMED, SCIELO and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two researchers independently selected studies, extracted data, evaluated the risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE approach. Disagreements were resolved by a third author. Meta-analyses were performed. Currently available evidence was from 18 RCTs, with a total of 793 participants. We found low-quality evidence suggesting there may be no difference between using infrared laser and sham in terms of pain, morning stiffness, grip strength, functional capacity, inflammation, ROM, disease activity and adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of red laser compared to sham in pain, morning stiffness. The evidence is also very uncertain about the effects of laser acupuncture compared to placebo in functional capacity, quality of life, range of motion and inflammation. Conclusions: Thus, infrared laser may not be superior to sham in RA patients. There is insufficient information to support or refute the effectiveness of red laser, laser acupuncture and reflexology for treating patients with RA.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Low-Level Light Therapy; Quality of Life; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Inflammation; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37683021
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291345 -
Cureus May 2023The most commonly encountered type of tarsal coalition in symptomatic patients is the calcaneonavicular coalition. Non-surgical treatments are effective for most... (Review)
Review
The most commonly encountered type of tarsal coalition in symptomatic patients is the calcaneonavicular coalition. Non-surgical treatments are effective for most patients. However, if surgery is required, excision of the calcaneonavicular bar can be a successful option that preserves hindfoot mobility and function. We conducted a systematic review of calcaneonavicular bar excision in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist. To conduct the review, we conducted a thorough search of several databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Scholar, and bibliographies. We analyzed the chosen studies to collect information on patient demographics, clinical outcomes, surgical techniques, and potential complications. We identified 11 studies that included 274 patients for a total of 394 feet. The average age of patients in these studies was 12.5 years, ranging from 8.2 to 19.4 years. Follow-up periods varied from 2.3 to 23 years, with an average duration of 5.9 years. Excision of the calcaneonavicular bar was performed at 380 feet, while fusion was performed at 14 feet. In 50.5% of the feet, the extensor digitorum brevis was used as an interposition material. Successful outcomes after bar excision were observed in 82.9% of cases (304 feet) and were described as satisfactory, improved, good, or excellent outcomes. In one study, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score improved from 47.89 to 90.22 in 12 feet after bar excision. Recurrence was reported in 52 feet out of the 380 feet that underwent bar excision. Progression of arthritis in the ankle and subtalar joint was reported in 25 feet. Various complications were reported, including paraesthesia in the hindfoot (three feet), midfoot pain (three feet), hindfoot pain (two feet), mild wound infection (one foot), and swelling and stiffness (one foot). Surgical excision of the calcaneonavicular bar has shown successful outcomes in most patients, regardless of the use of interposition material. These outcomes are associated with minimal and acceptable complications. However, since the studies conducted in the literature were single-center retrospective and prospective trials, a multicenter prospective study with patient-centered, validated outcomes would provide a better opportunity to support the evidence in favor of surgical excision of the calcaneonavicular bar. Overall, the use of various interposition materials is associated with reduced chances of recurrence compared to cases where no interposition material was used.
PubMed: 37346201
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.39275 -
Pain Research & Management 2022Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a high incidence chronic joint disease that seriously affects patients' quality of life, and current treatment methods have limited... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a high incidence chronic joint disease that seriously affects patients' quality of life, and current treatment methods have limited efficacy. Self-management may be an effective strategy for KOA, and clinicians have been showing increased interest recently. However, the effectiveness of self-management for KOA remains controversial.
PURPOSE
This study aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of self-management for KOA.
METHODS
We screened articles published in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science until September 17, 2021. The main outcomes included pain, knee function, stiffness, WOMAC (total), physical function, arthritis self-efficacy (ASE-pain), arthritis self-efficacy (ASE-other symptoms), mental health, and quality of life.
RESULTS
Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were finally included ( = 1610). Meta-analysis showed differences in pain, knee function, stiffness, ASE-pain, ASE-other symptoms, mental health, and quality of life between the self-management and control groups. Of the nine outcomes evaluated, four were highly heterogeneous, and the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.
CONCLUSION
The meta-analysis results showed that self-management might help improve the pain, knee function, stiffness, ASE, mental health, and quality of life in patients with KOA. However, it has no significant effect on WOMAC (total) and physical function. Considering that this study has some limitations, we cannot draw clear conclusions based on the results of this study. Nevertheless, we offer much needed insight and encourage more rigorously designed and implemented RCTs in the future to substantiate our conclusions.
Topics: Humans; Knee Joint; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self-Management
PubMed: 35281344
DOI: 10.1155/2022/2681240 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2022(1) Background: Ankle fracture results in pain, swelling, stiffness and strength reduction, leading to an altered biomechanical behavior of the joint during the gait... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Ankle fracture results in pain, swelling, stiffness and strength reduction, leading to an altered biomechanical behavior of the joint during the gait cycle. Nevertheless, a common pattern of kinematic alterations has still not been defined. To this end, we analyzed the literature on instrumental gait assessment after ankle fracture, and its correlation with evaluator-based and patient-reported outcome measures. (2) Methods: We conducted a systematic search, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, of articles published from January 2000 to June 2021 in PubMed, Embase and PEDro on instrumental gait assessment after ankle fracture. (3) Results: Several changes in gait occur after ankle fracture, including a reduction in step length, swing time, single support time, stride length, cadence, speed and an earlier foot-off time in the affected side. Additionally, trunk movement symmetry (especially vertical) is significantly reduced after ankle fracture. The instrumental assessments correlate with different clinical outcome measures. (4) Conclusions: Instrumental gait assessment can provide an objective characterization of the gait alterations after ankle fracture. Such assessment is important not only in clinical practice to assess patients' performance but also in clinical research as a reference point to evaluate existing or new rehabilitative interventions.
PubMed: 35054366
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12010199 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of unknown cause and affects mainly the spine, but can also affect other joints. Disease progression may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of unknown cause and affects mainly the spine, but can also affect other joints. Disease progression may result in loss of mobility and function. Sulfasalazine is a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug used in the treatment of AS. However, its efficacy remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of sulfasalazine for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for relevant randomized and quasi-randomized trials in any language, using the following sources: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 11); MEDLINE (2003 to 28 November 2013); EMBASE (2003 to 27 November 2013); CINAHL (2003 to 28 November 2013); Ovid MEDLINE data, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (28 November 2013); and the reference sections of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We evaluated randomized and quasi-randomized trials examining the benefits and harms of sulfasalazine on AS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed unblinded trial reports according to the selection criteria. Disagreements on the inclusion of the studies were resolved, when necessary, by recourse to a third review author. The same authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials and entered the data extracted from the included trials. We combined results using mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data.We restructured outcome measures for this update based on recommendations from the editorial group. Major outcomes included: pain, Bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index (BASDAI), Bath ankylosing spondylitis function index (BASFI), Bath ankylosing spondylitis metrology index (BASMI), radiographic progression, total number of withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not add any new studies to this review following the updated search. In the original review, we included 11 studies in the analysis, involving 895 participants in total. All included studies compared sulfasalazine with placebo. We judged most of the studies as low risk of bias or unclear risk of bias in five domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, selective reporting, and other sources of bias). However, for incomplete outcome data, we only judged one trial at low risk of bias.None of the included trials assessed BASDAI, BASFI, BASMI or radiographic progression. Different parameters were used to assess pain. The pooled MD for back pain measured on a 0 to 100 mm visual analogue scale was -2.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) -6.33 to 0.41; absolute risk difference 3%, 95% CI 1% to 6%; 6 trials). Compared to placebo, a significantly higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.15; absolute risk difference 4%, 95% CI 0.4% to 8.8%; 11 trials) was found in the sulfasalazine group. A serious adverse reaction was reported in one patient taking sulfasalazine (Peto odds ratio 7.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 378.16).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is not enough evidence to support any benefit of sulfasalazine in reducing pain, disease activity, radiographic progression, or improving physical function and spinal mobility in the treatment of AS. A statistically significant benefit in reducing the erythrocyte sedimentation rate and easing spinal stiffness was mentioned in the previous version. However, the effect size was very small and not clinically meaningful. More withdrawals because of side effects occurred with sulfasalazine. Further studies, with larger sample sizes, longer duration, and using validated outcome measures are needed to verify the uncertainty of sulfasalazine in AS.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Sulfasalazine
PubMed: 25427435
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004800.pub3 -
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Dec 2016Mosaicplasty has been associated with good short- to long-term results. Nevertheless, the osteochondral harvesting is restricted to the donor-site area available and it... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mosaicplasty has been associated with good short- to long-term results. Nevertheless, the osteochondral harvesting is restricted to the donor-site area available and it may lead to significant donor-site morbidity.
PURPOSE
Provide an overview of donor-site morbidity associated with harvesting of osteochondral plugs from the knee joint in mosaicplasty procedure.
METHODS
Comprehensive search using Pubmed, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus and CINAHL databases was carried out through 10 October of 2016. As inclusion criteria, all English-language studies that assessed the knee donor-site morbidity after mosaicplasty were accepted. The outcomes were the description and rate of knee donor-site morbidity, sample's and cartilage defect's characterization and mosaicplasty-related features. Correlation between mosaicplasty features and rate of morbidity was performed. The methodological and reporting quality were assessed according to Coleman's methodology score.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were included, comprising a total of 1726 patients, with 1473 and 268 knee and ankle cartilage defects were included. The defect size ranged from 0.85 cm to 4.9 cm and most commonly 3 or less plugs (averaging 2.9 to 9.4 mm) were used. Donor-site for osteochondral harvesting included margins of the femoral trochlea (condyles), intercondylar notch, patellofemoral joint and upper tibio-fibular joint. Mean donor-site morbidity was 5.9 % and 19.6 % for knee and ankle mosaicplasty procedures, respectively. Concerning knee-to-knee mosaicplasty procedures, the most common donor-site morbidity complaints were patellofemoral disturbances (22 %) and crepitation (31 %), and in knee-to-ankle procedures there was a clear tendency for pain or instability during daily living or sports activities (44 %), followed by patellofemoral disturbances, knee stiffness and persistent pain (13 % each). There was no significant correlation between rate of donor-site morbidity and size of the defect, number and size of the plugs (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Osteochondral harvesting in mosaicplasty often results in considerable donor-site morbidity. The donor-site morbidity for knee-to-ankle (16.9 %) was greater than knee-to-knee (5.9 %) mosaicplasty procedures, without any significant correlation between rate of donor-site morbidity and size of the defect, number and size of the plugs. Lack or imcomplete of donor-site morbidity reporting within the mosaicplasty studies is a concern that should be addressed in future studies.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.
PubMed: 27813019
DOI: 10.1186/s40634-016-0066-0 -
The Knee Mar 2023The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate outcomes and complications rates between inlay and onlay patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate outcomes and complications rates between inlay and onlay patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA).
METHODS
According to the PRISMA statement, 42 studies with 2552 patients were included. Data considered for quantitative analysis consisted of the Knee Society Score (KSS), the range of motion (ROM), the visual analogue score (VAS), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities questionnaire (WOMAC). Complications and revision surgery were considered.
RESULTS
Data on postoperative KSS showed no differences between the groups. The ROM was evaluated in 8 studies for 70 and 331 inlay and onlay PFA, respectively. Onlay group was favorable in terms of postoperative ROM. Postoperative VAS was available for 64 inlay and 110 onlay and no differences were found. Data on postoperative WOMAC were available for 49 inlay and 527 onlay PFA and inlay group showed better scores. A statistically significant higher rate of instability, persistent pain, malposition, stiffness, deep infection, disease progression, and wear of the patellar component were noted in the inlay group. A higher rate of lateral release was noted in the onlay group. A higher number of manipulations under anesthesia was noted in the inlay group. The revision to total knee arthroplasty was reported more frequently in the inlay group.
CONCLUSION
A higher rate of conversion to total knee arthroplasty and complication rates after inlay technique was found. The potential of achieving better WOMAC scores with the inlay technique should be weighed against the higher complication and revision rates compared to the onlay technique.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
IV.
Topics: Humans; Knee Prosthesis; Treatment Outcome; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Patella; Knee Joint
PubMed: 36680866
DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2023.01.001