Surgical management of cubital tunnel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Background: Cubital tunnel syndrome (CUTS) is a common upper limb compression neuropathy with significant consequences when left untreated. Surgical decompression remains gold-standard treatment for moderate to severe disease, however the optimal operative technique remains unclear. This network meta-analysis (NMA) of Level I and II randomised prospective studies aims to discern superiority between open in-situ, endoscopic and anterior transposition (subcutaneous or submuscular techniques) with respect to the primary outcome of response-to-treatment and secondary outcomes which include complications, post-operative chronic pain VAS scale, return to work and re-operation. Methods: This NMA adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, Science direct and Embase were searched. The MESH database was further searched with the terms 'cubital tunnel' to improve sensitivity of the search. Data pertaining to the primary and secondary outcomes were pooled for NMA. Results: Following abstract and full-text screening, 10 randomised prospective trials were included. There was no statistical difference in the response-to-treatment between the four studied techniques. Endoscopic decompression conferred a significantly higher complication rate compared to open decompression (Odds Ratio [OR], 4.21; 95% CI, 1.22-14.59). Endoscopic decompression had a statistically significant lower risk of post-operative chronic pain compared to open in-situ decompression (OR, 0.03, 95% CI, 0.00-0.32). There were no differences between techniques with respect to return to work or re-operation rates. Conclusion: Response-to-treatment was similar between the four operative techniques for CUTS. Endoscopic decompression was found to be more hazardous when compared to open-in situ decompression but conferred significantly less post-operative chronic pain. There was significant heterogeneity in reported outcomes between the included articles. The authors suggest conducting more high-quality research with standardised outcome reporting to facilitate comparison. Level of evidence ii: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Prospective Trials- Therapeutic study.

Surgical management of SLAP lesions: Which technique has better surgical outcomes?

Background: The gold-standard surgical management for superior labral anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions is unclear. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of different surgical SLAP lesion management techniques including labral repair, long head of biceps (LHB) tenodesis and LHB tenotomy with consideration to clinical scores, return to sports, re-operation, range-of-motion and patient satisfaction. Methods: PRISMA guidelines were adhered. Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central, Science direct and EMBASE were searched using relevant keywords. Eligible studies were screened, data extracted and synthesised using Review Manager (Version 5.4.1). Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Randomised control and clinical trials regarding SLAP lesion management in patients over 18 years old were included. Studies were excluded if patients had concomitant massive tears of the rotator cuff, Bankart lesions or instability of the shoulder. Results: Patient satisfaction with LHB tenodesis was superior to superior labral repair. No difference was demonstrated with respect to ASES score, pain VAS score, return to sports and pre-injury activities, reoperation rate or range-of-motion. LHB tenodesis and LHB tenotomy show no difference in ASES score or post operative deformity in management of SLAP lesions. Discussion: High-quality, standardised randomised control studies between the different surgical techniques is warranted.

Postoperative mobilization after terrible triad injury: systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Terrible triad injury is a complex injury of the elbow, involving elbow dislocation with associated fracture of the radial head, avulsion or tear of the lateral ulnar collateral ligament, and fracture of the coronoid. These injuries are commonly managed surgically with fixation or replacement of the radial head and repair of the collateral ligaments with or without fixation of the coronoid. Postoperative mobilization is a significant factor that may affect patient outcomes; however, the optimal postoperative mobilization protocol is unclear. This study aimed to systematically review the available literature regarding postoperative rehabilitation of terrible triad injuries to aid clinical decision making. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were studies with populations aged ≥16 years with terrible triad injury in which operative treatment was performed, a clear postoperative mobilization protocol was defined, and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was reported. Secondary outcomes were pain, instability, and range of motion (ROM). Postoperative mobilization was classified as either "early," defined as active ROM commencement before or up to 14 days, or "late," defined as active ROM commencement after 14 days. RESULTS: A total of 119 articles were identified from the initial search, of which 11 (301 patients) were included in the final review. The most common protocols (6 studies) favored early mobilization, whereas 5 studies undertook late mobilization. Meta-regression analysis including mobilization as a covariate showed an estimated mean difference in the pooled mean MEPS between early and late mobilization of 6.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.2-12) with a higher pooled mean MEPS for early mobilization (MEPS, 91.2) than for late mobilization (MEPS, 85; P = .041). Rates of instability reported ranged from 4.5% to 19% (8%-11.5% for early mobilization and 4.5%-19% for late mobilization). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that early postoperative mobilization may confer a benefit in terms of functional outcomes following surgical management of terrible triad injuries without appearing to confer an increased instability risk. Further research in the form of randomized controlled trials between early and late mobilization is advised to provide a higher level of evidence.

Aspirin as a thromboprophylaxis agent after revision knee arthroplasty: A retrospective analysis.

Introduction: Total knee arthroplasty is a common and effective procedure. Although complication rates are low, certain complications such as venous thromboembolism are potentially serious. The optimal prophylactic agent and dosage after revision knee arthroplasty remains unclear. The main objective of this work was to study the efficacy and safety of aspirin as a thromboprophylaxis agent following revision knee arthroplasties. Patients and methods: A retrospective review of patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty between 2013 and 2020at a University Teaching Hospital was undertaken. The primary outcome was the development of a symptomatic thromboembolic event requiring treatment within 90 days post-surgery. The secondary outcomes were adverse events associated with aspirin therapy: surgical site infection rate; incidence of major bleeding; readmission rate and mortality within 90 days post-surgery. Results: 490 patients were included. 374 (76.3%) received prophylactic aspirin (150 mg once daily for 28 days) and 75 (15.3%) patients received dalteparin for 28 days due to contraindication to aspirin use. Those already receiving other thromboprophylaxis agents for pre-existing comorbidities continued these after relevant medical consultation. The overall rates of venous thromboembolism and symptomatic DVT after aspirin prophylaxis were 0.6% (3/490) and 0.8% (3/374), respectively. VTE incidence did not significantly differ between those administered aspirin and other agents. No patient experienced major bleeding within 90 postoperative days. Only 2 of 490 (0.4%) patients had wound infection requiring readmission; neither received prophylactic aspirin. Conclusion: Extended out-of-hospital thromboembolic prophylaxis with aspirin may be at least as effective as other agents in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty. Aspirin is safe, effective, and cheap compared with other agents.