Browse
You are looking at 101 - 110 of 768 items for
Search for other papers by Hua Luo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Xueli Yan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Yu Ren in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Han Zhang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Wenjun Pan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purpose
-
This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), focusing on its impact on intraoperative blood loss and related outcomes.
Methods
-
The review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all literature related with TXA and TLIF. Finally, five trials ultimately meeting the inclusion criteria. Continuous variables were analyzed using mean difference and categorical variables were analyzed using Peto odds ratio, via random effects models.
Results
-
The meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss associated with TXA use during TLIF, as confirmed by the RCTs. However, the impact of TXA on other outcomes, such as postoperative drainage volume, total blood loss, and length of hospital stay, remains inconclusive due to limited data. No severe complications related to TXA use were reported, providing preliminary evidence of its safety in TLIF.
Conclusion
-
TXA appears to effectively reduce intraoperative blood loss in TLIF, based on the available RCT evidence. However, further research is needed to provide a comprehensive assessment of TXA’s overall impact on various outcomes in this context. This meta-analysis underscores the importance of ongoing investigation to establish the full potential and safety profile of TXA in TLIF procedures.
Search for other papers by Mehnoor Khaliq in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Vasileios P Giannoudis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jeya Palan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Hemant G Pandit in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bernard H van Duren in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Patients undergoing planned or unplanned orthopaedic procedures involving their upper or lower extremity can prevent them from safe and timely return to driving, where they commonly ask, ‘Doctor, when can I drive?’ Driving recommendations after such procedures are varied. The current evidence available is based on a heterogenous data set with varying degrees of sample size and markedly differing study designs.
-
This instructional review article provides a scoping overview of studies looking at return to driving after upper or lower extremity surgery in both trauma and elective settings and, where possible, to provide clinical recommendations for return to driving.
-
Medline, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases were searched according to a defined search protocol to elicit eligible studies. Articles were included if they reviewed adult drivers who underwent upper or lower extremity orthopaedic procedures, were written in English, and offered recommendations about driving.
-
A total of 68 articles were included in the analysis, with 36 assessing the lower extremity and 37 reviewing the upper extremity. The evidence available from the studies reviewed was of poor methodological quality. There was a lack of adequately powered, high quality, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with large sample sizes to assess safe return to driving for differing subset of injuries.
-
Many articles provide generic guidelines on return to driving when patients feel safe to perform an emergency stop procedure with adequate steering wheel control.
-
In future, RCTs should be performed to develop definitive return to driving protocols in patients undergoing upper and lower extremity procedures.
Surgery Department, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montreal University, Montreal, Québec, Canada
Clinique orthopédique Duval, 1487 Boul des Laurentides, Laval
Search for other papers by Pascal-André Vendittoli in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Bordeaux Arthroplasty Research Institute - Clinique du Sport Bordeaux-Mérignac 04-06 rue Georges Negrevergne, Mérignac, France
Search for other papers by Charles Riviere in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland, Bruderholz, Switzerland
Clinical Research Group Michael T. Hirschmann, Regenerative Medicine & Biomechanics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Search for other papers by Michael T Hirschmann in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
Search for other papers by Stefano Bini in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Although hip and knee joint replacements provide excellent clinical results, many patients still do not report the sensation and function of a natural joint. The perception that the joint is artificial may result from the anatomical modifications imposed by the surgical technique and the implant design. Moreover, the joint replacement material may not function similarly to human tissues.
-
To restore native joint kinematics, function, and perception, three key elements play a role: (i) joint morphology (articular surface geometry, bony anatomy, etc.), (ii) lower limb anatomy (alignment, joint orientation), and (iii) soft tissue laxity/tension.
-
To provide a ‘forgotten joint’ to most patients, it is becoming clear that personalizing joint replacement is the key solution. Performing a personalized joint replacement starts with patient selection and preoperative optimization, followed by using a surgical technique and implant design aimed at restoring the patient’s native anatomy, creating optimal implant-to-bone stress transfer, restoring the joint’s native articular range of motion without imposed limitations, macro- and micro-stability of the soft tissues, and a bearing whose wear resistance provides lifetime survivorship with unrestricted activities. In addition, the whole perioperative experience should follow enhanced recovery after surgery principles, favoring a rapid and complication-free recovery.
-
As a new concept, some confusion may arise when applying these personalized surgery principles. Therefore, the Personalized Arthroplasty Society was created to help structure and accelerate the adoption of this paradigm change. This statement from the Society on personalized arthroplasty will serve as a reference that will evolve with time.
Steadman Clinic and United States Coalition for the Prevention of Illness and Injury in Sport, Vail, Colorado, USA
Search for other papers by Joseph J Ruzbarsky in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rui W Soares in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Spencer M Comfort in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Justin W Arner in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Steadman Clinic and United States Coalition for the Prevention of Illness and Injury in Sport, Vail, Colorado, USA
Search for other papers by Marc J Philippon in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
With the growing number of primary arthroscopies performed, patients requiring revision hip arthroscopies for various issues is high including postoperative adhesion formation, a source of pain, mechanical symptoms, range of motion limitation, stiffness, and microinstability.
-
Adhesions are a consequence of biological pathways that have been stimulated by injury or surgical interventions leading to an increased healing response.
-
Preventative efforts have included surgical adjuncts during/after primary hip arthroscopy, biologic augmentation, and postoperative rehabilitation.
-
Treatment options for adhesion formation includes surgical lysis of adhesions with or without placement of biologic membranes aimed at inhibiting adhesion reformation as well as systemic medications to further reduce the risk.
-
Postoperative rehabilitation exercises have also been demonstrated to prevent adhesions as a result of hip arthroscopy. Ongoing clinical trials are further investigating pathways and prevention of adhesion formation.
Centre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI)-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Balkan Center, Thessaloniki, Greece
Search for other papers by Vasileios F Pegios in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Centre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI)-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Balkan Center, Thessaloniki, Greece
Search for other papers by Eustathios Kenanidis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
Search for other papers by Stavros Tsotsolis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Centre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI)-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Balkan Center, Thessaloniki, Greece
Search for other papers by Michael Potoupnis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Centre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI)-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Balkan Center, Thessaloniki, Greece
Search for other papers by Eleftherios Tsiridis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purpose
-
The main indication of bisphosphonates (BPs) is osteoporosis treatment. However, there is growing interest in the peri- and postoperative use of BPs to mitigate total hip arthroplasty (THA) aseptic loosening (AL) risk. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the implant survival and the AL rate in patients with elective THA receiving BPs compared to those that do not receive BPs. Secondary outcomes included the comparison of revision rate, postoperative complications, and patients’ functional scores.
Methods
-
This systematic review was conducted under the PRISMA 2020 guidelines with a pre-registered PROSPERO protocol. Three engines and grey literature were searched up until May 2022. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials and comparative cohort studies assessing BP and control therapy impact on THA survival were included.
Results
-
Twelve studies embraced the inclusion criteria. A total of 99 678 patients and 99 696 THAs were included; 10 025 patients received BPs (BP group), and 89 129 made up the control group. The overall revision and AL rates were lower in the BP group (2.17% and 1.85%) than in the control group (4.06% and 3.2%). Periprosthetic fracture (PPF) cases were higher in the BP group (0.24%) than in the control group (0.04%); however, the majority of PPF cases were derived from a single study. Further complication risk was similar between groups. Most studies reported comparable functional scores between groups.
Conclusion
-
BP treatment after elective THA seems to reduce the overall revision and AL risk. Other complications’ risk and functional scores were similar between groups. Further high-quality studies are needed to validate the results due to the multifactorial AL pathogenesis.
Search for other papers by Wen-xi Sun in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Wei-qiang Huang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Hua-yang Li in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Hong-shen Wang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sheng-li Guo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jie Dong in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bo-lai Chen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Yong-peng Lin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purpose
-
To determine whether using robots in spine surgery results in more clinical advantages and fewer adverse consequences.
Methods
-
Between October 1990 and October 2022, a computer-based search was conducted through the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine, VIP databases, and WAN FANG. The study only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted surgery with those of conventional spine surgery. The review was conducted following PRISMA 2020, and AMSTAR-2 was used to evaluate the methodological quality. R version 4.2.1 was used in the meta-analysis. The Cochrane Collaboration Tool was used for evaluating the risk of bias.
Results
-
This study analyzed 954 participants from 20 RCTs involving cervical spondylosis, lumbar degenerative disease, scoliosis, etc. The robot-assisted group outperformed the freehand group in terms of intraoperative blood loss, number of screws in grade A position, grade A + B position, radiation dose, and hospital stay. Operation duration, visual analog scale scores of low back pain, Oswestry disability index, and radiation exposure time did not significantly differ between the two groups.
Conclusions
-
Although robotic spine surgery is more accurate in pedicle screw placement than conventional methods, the robot group did not demonstrate an advantage in terms of clinical efficacy. Studies of complications and cost-effectiveness are still very rare.
Botnar Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, UK
Search for other papers by Anne Lübbeke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Christophe Combescure in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Christophe Barea in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Amanda Inez Gonzalez in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Keith Tucker in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Per Kjærsgaard-Andersen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Tom Melvin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Alan G Fraser in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rob Nelissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
Search for other papers by James A Smith in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purpose
-
The objective of this systematic review was to give an overview of clinical investigations regarding hip and knee arthroplasty implants published in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals before entry into force of the EU Medical Device Regulation in May 2021.
Methods
-
We systematically reviewed the medical literature for a random selection of hip and knee implants to identify all peer-reviewed clinical investigations published within 10 years before and up to 20 years after regulatory approval. We report study characteristics, methodologies, outcomes, measures to prevent bias, and timing of clinical investigations of 30 current implants. The review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
Results
-
We identified 2912 publications and finally included 151 papers published between 1995 and 2021 (63 on hip stems, 34 on hip cups, and 54 on knee systems). We identified no clinical studies published before Conformité Européene (CE)-marking for any selected device, and no studies even up to 20 years after CE-marking in one-quarter of devices. There were very few randomized controlled trials, and registry-based studies generally had larger sample sizes and better methodology.
Conclusion
-
The peer-reviewed literature alone is insufficient as a source of clinical investigations of these high-risk devices intended for life-long use. A more systematic, efficient, and faster way to evaluate safety and performance is necessary. Using a phased introduction approach, nesting comparative studies of observational and experimental design in existing registries, increasing the use of benefit measures, and accelerating surrogate outcomes research will help to minimize risks and maximize benefits.
Search for other papers by Markus Jaschke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Krzysztof Rekawek in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sebastian Sokolowski in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Lukasz Kolodziej in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Distal biceps tendon (DBT) is a relatively rare injury mainly occurring in middle-aged men while in eccentric biceps muscle contraction.
-
Clinical appearance with proximal avulsion of the muscle and specific clinical tests are most of the time sufficient for diagnosing DBT, but if needed ultrasonography and MRI, most often in FABS view, can be used to ensure diagnosis of DBT and partial DBT.
-
Surgical anatomical reinsertion has shown to be a successful method of treatment, although conservative treatment can be initiated in older patients.
-
Two different approaches are described in literature: single- and double-incision techniques with different fixation methods proving to have similarly good results.
-
Major complications of surgical intervention are posterior interosseous nerve palsy and symptomatic heterotropic ossification.
-
Overall outcome of surgical intervention has shown high subjective satisfaction with slight weakness in flexion and supination but mostly without loss in range of motion.
Department of Orthopaedics, University Hospital of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
Search for other papers by Aline Van Oevelen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Arne Burssens in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nicola Krähenbühl in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Alexej Barg in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bernhard Devos Bevernage in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Electromechanics, InViLab research group, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Department of Trauma and Orthopedics, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
Search for other papers by Emmanuel Audenaert in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Beat Hintermann in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jan Victor in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purpose
-
Emerging reports suggest an important involvement of the ankle/hindfoot alignment in the outcome of knee osteotomy; however, a comprehensive overview is currently not available. Therefore, we systematically reviewed all studies investigating biomechanical and clinical outcomes related to the ankle/hindfoot following knee osteotomies.
Methods
-
A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Library according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered on international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42021277189). Combining knee osteotomy and ankle/hindfoot alignment, all biomechanical and clinical studies were included. Studies investigating knee osteotomy in conjunction with total knee arthroplasty and case reports were excluded. The QUality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scores were used for quality assessment.
Results
-
Out of 3554 hits, 18 studies were confirmed eligible, including 770 subjects. The minority of studies (n = 3) assessed both high tibial- and distal femoral osteotomy. Following knee osteotomy, the mean tibiotalar contact pressure decreased (n = 4) except in the presence of a rigid subtalar joint (n = 1) or a talar tilt deformity (n = 1). Patient symptoms and/or radiographic alignment at the level of the ankle/hindfoot improved after knee osteotomy (n = 13). However, factors interfering with an optimal outcome were a small preoperative lateral distal tibia angle, a small hip–knee–ankle axis (HKA) angle, a large HKA correction (>14.5°) and a preexistent hindfoot deformity (>15.9°).
Conclusions
-
Osteotomies to correct knee deformity alter biomechanical and clinical outcomes at the level of the ankle/hindfoot. In general, these changes were beneficial, but several parameters were identified in association with deterioration of ankle/hindfoot symptoms following knee osteotomy.
Search for other papers by Mattia Alessio-Mazzola in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Giacomo Placella in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Luigi Zagra in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Orlando Leone in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Natasha Di Fabio in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Desiree Moharamzadeh in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Vincenzo Salini in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purpose
-
The results of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction are still under-investigated. The purpose of this research is to investigate the differences between TKA after ACL reconstruction and TKA for primary osteoarthritis through a review and meta-analysis of the literature.
Methods
-
Case–control and cohort studies reporting outcomes of TKA following ACL reconstruction were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary endpoint was to systematically review and meta-analyze the reported complications of TKA following ACL reconstruction. The outcomes have been compared with a group of patients who underwent TKA for primary knee osteoarthritis (OA) with any previous ACL surgery. Secondary endpoints were to assess and compare technical difficulties and results including the operative time, the use of revision components, the request for intraoperative release or additional procedures, the revision rate, and the clinical outcomes.
Results
-
Seven studies were included involving 1645 participants, 619 of whom underwent TKA in previous ACL reconstruction and 1026 TKA for primary OA with no previous ACL reconstruction. Meta-analysis showed that TKA in previous ACL reconstruction had a significantly higher complication rate (OR = 2.15, P < 0.001), longer operative times (mean differences (MD): 11.19 min; P < 0.001) and increased use of revision components (OR = 2.16; P < 0.001) when compared to the control group without differences of infection, and revision rate.
Conclusions
-
TKA in a previous ACL reconstruction has a significantly higher complication rate, longer operative times, and a higher need for revision components and intraoperative soft tissue releases in comparison to TKA for primary OA without previous ACL reconstruction.
