Xun WangDepartment of Orthopedics, Center for Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
Fabo FengDepartment of Orthopedics, Center for Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a classic surgical procedure for posterior lumbar fusion. This study aims to analyze the TLIF field by bibliometric method and comprehensively summarize the research status and trends.
All TLIF-related articles were retrieved from the Web of Science. The data were analyzed using R software and SPSS to calculate corresponding indicators. Visualizations were drawn using VOSviewer and Scimago Graphica, including country, institution, journal, author, and keywords.
A total of 919 articles were included. The annual publication volume of TLIF-related articles presented an exponential growth. North America, Europe, and Asia were the main sources of articles, with the USA and China being the main contributors and the USA being the global research center for TLIF. The level of the national economy was an important factor affecting TLIF-related research. The highest number of contributions in this field was made by Kern Singh among authors and by Rush University among institutions. The European Spine Journal was the most influential journal. The research focus has gradually shifted from perfecting the TLIF technique toward emphasizing the patient level. The improvement of minimally invasive techniques and how to improve clinical outcomes as well as accelerate postoperative rehabilitation of patients may be the hot spot of future research.
With the advancement of medical technology and the popularization of minimally invasive concepts in recent years, TLIF and its derivative technologies have attracted increasing attention. Patient-centered minimally invasive surgery is a hot research topic in the field of TLIF currently and will continue to be so into the future
Acute compartment syndrome (ACS) is an orthopedic emergency that may lead to devastating sequelae. Diagnosis may be difficult. The aim of this systematic review is to identify clinical and radiological risk factors for ACS occurrence in tibial fractures.
PubMed® database was searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Additional articles were found by a manual research of selected references and authors’ known articles.
The identification process individualized 2758 via database and 30 via other methods. After screening and eligibility assessment, 29 articles were included. Age, gender, occupation, comorbidities, medications, habits, polytrauma, multiple injuries, mechanism, sports, site, open vs closed, contiguous lesion, classification, and pattern were found to be related to ACS occurrence.
Younger age and male gender are strong independent risk factors in tibial plateau and shaft fractures. High-energy fractures, polytrauma, more proximal fractures and fractures with contiguous skeletal lesions are aggravating risk factors; higher AO/OTA and Schatzker classification types, increased displacement of the tibia relative to the femur, and increased tibial joint surface width are associated risk factors in tibial plateau fractures; higher AO Foundation/Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification types and subgroups and more proximal fractures within the diaphysis are associated risk factors in tibial shaft fracture. Open fractures do not prevent ACS occurrence. Increased fracture length is the only factor suggesting a higher risk of ACS in tibial pilon fractures. The presence of each independent predictor may have a cumulative effect increasing the risk of ACS occurrence.
Denosumab is a fully humanised monoclonal antibody to RANK ligand, inhibiting the RANK–RANKL pathway. It promotes the apoptosis of osteoclast-like giant cells, a secondary ossification and connective tissue formation.
Given its high efficacy, denosumab is the standard treatment of unresectable or metastatic giant cell tumour of bone (GCTB) requiring morbid surgery.
Neoadjuvant administration of denosumab may be justified to enable the resection of the tumour in certain cases; it should be considered, however, with caution for joint-saving surgery due to high local recurrence rates.
In cases of unresectable or metastatic GCTB, however, denosumab treatment should be administered for years or even as a lifelong therapy. This poses many yet unanswered questions concerning the frequency of denosumab treatment as well as the ratio of the adverse events in the following years.
Denosumab suppresses, not directly targets, the neoplastic stromal cells of GCTB. Ongoing in vitro studies suggest that other drugs alone or in combination (e.g. sunitinib) with denosumab may target both the neoplastic and the giant cells.
Promising results have been reported regarding the off-label use of denosumab in other giant cell-rich tumours/tumour-like lesions, i.e. aneurysmal bone cysts and central giant cell granulomas. Data are derived, however, mostly from case reports and case series. Large prospective clinical trials are needed to evaluate the role and also the side effects of denosumab in the treatment of these rare diseases.
Myles C MurphyNutrition & Health Innovation Research Institute, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia School of Health Sciences and Physiotherapy, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia
Christopher LatellaSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Centre for Human Performance, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia Neurophysiology Research Laboratory, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Centre for Human Performance, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia
Ebonie K RioLa Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia Australian Ballet, Southbank, Victoria, Australia Victorian Institute of Sport, Albert Park Victoria, Australia
Janet L TaylorSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Centre for Human Performance, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia Neurophysiology Research Laboratory, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Centre for Human Performance, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia
Andrea B MoslerNutrition & Health Innovation Research Institute, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
The aim of the study was to quantify motor cortex descending drive and voluntary activation (VA) in people with lower-limb OA compared to controls.
A systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines was carried out. Seven databases were searched until 30 December 2022. Studies assessing VA or responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS; i.e. motor evoked potential, intracortical facilitation, motor threshold, short-interval intracortical inhibition, and silent period) were included. Study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute criteria and evidence certainty using GRADE. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan inverse variance, mixed-effect models.
Eighteen studies were included, all deemed low-quality. Quadriceps VA was impaired with knee OA compared to healthy controls (standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.84, 95% CI = −1.12–0.56, low certainty). VA of the more symptomatic limb was impaired (SMD = 0.42, 95% CI = −0.75–0.09, moderate certainty) compared to the other limb in people with hip/knee OA. As only two studies assessed responses to TMS, very low-certainty evidence demonstrated no significant difference between knee OA and healthy controls for motor evoked potential, intracortical facilitation, resting motor threshold or short-interval intracortical inhibition.
Low-certainty evidence suggests people with knee OA have substantial impairments in VA of their quadriceps muscle when compared to healthy controls. With moderate certainty we conclude that people with hip and knee OA had larger impairments in VA of the quadriceps in their more painful limb compared to their non-affected/other limb.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pascal-André VendittoliPersonalized Arthroplasty Society Surgery Department, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montreal University, Montreal, Québec, Canada Clinique orthopédique Duval, 1487 Boul des Laurentides, Laval
Michael T HirschmannPersonalized Arthroplasty Society Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland, Bruderholz, Switzerland Clinical Research Group Michael T. Hirschmann, Regenerative Medicine & Biomechanics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
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.
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.
Vasileios F PegiosAcademic Orthopaedic Department, Aristotle University Medical School, General Hospital Papageorgiou, Thessaloniki, Greece Centre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI)-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Balkan Center, Thessaloniki, Greece
Eustathios KenanidisAcademic Orthopaedic Department, Aristotle University Medical School, General Hospital Papageorgiou, Thessaloniki, Greece Centre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI)-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Balkan Center, Thessaloniki, Greece
Stavros TsotsolisCentre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI)-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Balkan Center, Thessaloniki, Greece Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
Michael PotoupnisAcademic Orthopaedic Department, Aristotle University Medical School, General Hospital Papageorgiou, Thessaloniki, Greece Centre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI)-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Balkan Center, Thessaloniki, Greece
Eleftherios TsiridisAcademic Orthopaedic Department, Aristotle University Medical School, General Hospital Papageorgiou, Thessaloniki, Greece Centre of Orthopaedic and Regenerative Medicine (CORE), Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation (CIRI)-Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Balkan Center, Thessaloniki, Greece
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.
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.
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.
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.
To determine whether using robots in spine surgery results in more clinical advantages and fewer adverse consequences.
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.
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.
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.