Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a compression neuropathy of the median nerve at the wrist. Surgery is considered when symptoms persist despite the use of non-surgical treatments. It is unclear whether surgery produces a better outcome than non-surgical therapy. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of carpal tunnel release compared with non-surgical treatment in the short (< 3 months) and long (> 3 months) term. SEARCH METHODS: In this update, we included studies from the previous version of this review and searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP until 18 November 2022. We also checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing any surgical technique with any non-surgical therapies for CTS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: The 14 included studies randomised 1231 participants (1293 wrists). Eighty-four per cent of participants were women. The mean age ranged from 32 to 53 years, and the mean duration of symptoms from 31 weeks to 3.5 years. Trial sizes varied from 22 to 176 participants. The studies compared surgery with: splinting, corticosteroid injection, splinting and corticosteroid injection, platelet-rich plasma injection, manual therapy, multimodal non-operative treatment, unspecified medical treatment and hand support, and surgery and corticosteroid injection with corticosteroid injection alone. Since surgery is generally used for its long-term effects, this abstract presents only long-term results for surgery versus splinting and surgery versus corticosteroid injection. 1) Surgery compared to splinting in the long term (> 3 months) Surgery probably results in a higher rate of clinical improvement (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 4.24; 3 studies, 210 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Surgery probably does not provide clinically important benefit in symptoms or hand function compared with splinting (moderate-certainty evidence). The mean Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (scale 1 to 5; higher is worse; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) = 1) was 1.54 with splint and 0.26 points better with surgery (95% CI 0.52 better to 0.01 worse; 2 studies, 195 participants). The mean BCTQ Functional Status Scale (scale 1 to 5; higher is worse; MCID 0.7) was 1.75 with splint and 0.36 points better with surgery (95% CI 0.62 better to 0.09 better; 2 studies, 195 participants). None of the studies reported pain. Surgery may not provide better health-related quality of life compared with splinting (low-certainty evidence). The mean EQ-5D index (scale 0 to 1; higher is better; MCID 0.074) was 0.81 with splinting and 0.04 points better with surgery (95% CI 0.0 to 0.08 better; 1 study, 167 participants). We are uncertain about the risk of adverse effects (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were reported amongst 60 of 98 participants (61%) in the surgery group and 46 of 112 participants (41%) in the splinting group (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.37 to 12.12; 2 studies, 210 participants). Surgery probably reduces the risk of further surgery; 41 of 93 participants (44%) were referred to surgery in the splinting group and 0 of 83 participants (0%) repeated surgery in the surgery group (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.21; 2 studies, 176 participants). This corresponds to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 2 (95% CI 1 to 9). 2) Surgery compared to corticosteroid injection in the long term (> 3 months) We are uncertain if clinical improvement or symptom relief differs between surgery and corticosteroid injection (very low-certainty evidence). The RR for clinical improvement was 1.23 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.06; 3 studies, 187 participants). For symptoms, the standardised mean difference (SMD) was -0.60 (95% CI -1.88 to 0.69; 2 studies, 118 participants). This translates to 0.4 points better (95% CI from 1.3 better to 0.5 worse) on the BCTQ Symptom Severity Scale. Hand function or pain probably do not differ between surgery and corticosteroid injection (moderate-certainty evidence). For function, the SMD was -0.12 (95% CI -0.80 to 0.56; 2 studies, 191 participants) translating to 0.10 points better (95% CI 0.66 better to 0.46 worse) on the BCTQ Functional Status Scale with surgery. Pain (0 to 100 scale) was 8 points with corticosteroid injection and 6 points better (95% CI 10.45 better to 1.55 better; 1 study, 123 participants) with surgery. We found no data to estimate the difference in health-related quality of life (very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the risk of adverse effects and further surgery (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were reported amongst 3 of 45 participants (7%) in the surgery group and 2 of 45 participants (4%) in the corticosteroid injection group (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.70; 2 studies, 90 participants). In one study, 12 of 83 participants (15%) needed surgery in the corticosteroid group, and 7 of 80 participants (9%) needed repeated surgery in the surgery group (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.46; 1 study, 163 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, the efficacy of surgery in people with CTS is unclear. It is also unclear if the results can be applied to people who are not satisfied after trying various non-surgical options. Future studies should preferably blind participants from treatment allocation and randomise people who are dissatisfied after being treated non-surgically. The decision for a patient to opt for surgery should balance the small benefits and potential risks of surgery. Patients with severe symptoms, a high preference for clinical improvement and reluctance to adhere to non-surgical options, and who do not consider potential surgical risks and morbidity a burden, may choose surgery. On the other hand, those who have tolerable symptoms, who have not tried non-surgical options and who want to avoid surgery-related morbidity can start with non-surgical options and have surgery only if necessary. We are uncertain if the risk of adverse effects differs between surgery and non-surgical treatments. The severity of adverse effects may also be different.

Splinting for carpal tunnel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a compression neuropathy of the median nerve causing pain and numbness and tingling typically in the thumb, index and middle finger. It sometimes results in muscle wasting, diminished sensitivity and loss of dexterity. Splinting the wrist (with or without the hand) using an orthosis is usually offered to people with mild-to-moderate findings, but its effectiveness remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of splinting for people with CTS. SEARCH METHODS: On 12 December 2021, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP with no limitations. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials were included if the effect of splinting could be isolated from other treatment modalities. The comparisons included splinting versus no active treatment (or placebo), splinting versus another disease-modifying non-surgical treatment, and comparisons of different splint-wearing regimens. We excluded studies comparing splinting with surgery or one splint design with another. We excluded participants if they had previously undergone surgical release. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed study risk of bias and the certainty in the body of evidence for primary outcomes using the GRADE approach, according to standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 trials randomising 1937 adults with CTS. The trials ranged from 21 to 234 participants, with mean ages between 42 and 60 years. The mean duration of CTS symptoms was seven weeks to five years. Eight studies with 523 hands compared splinting with no active intervention (no treatment, sham-kinesiology tape or sham-laser); 20 studies compared splinting (or splinting delivered along with another non-surgical intervention) with another non-surgical intervention; and three studies compared different splinting regimens (e.g. night-time only versus full time). Trials were generally at high risk of bias for one or more domains, including lack of blinding (all included studies) and lack of information about randomisation or allocation concealment in 23 studies. For the primary comparison, splinting compared to no active treatment, splinting may provide little or no benefits in symptoms in the short term (< 3 months). The mean Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) (scale 1 to 5, higher is worse; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 1 point) was 0.37 points better with splint (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 better to 0.08 worse; 6 studies, 306 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared with no active treatment. Removing studies with high or unclear risk of bias due to lack of randomisation or allocation concealment supported our conclusion of no important effect (mean difference (MD) 0.01 points worse with splint; 95% CI 0.20 better to 0.22 worse; 3 studies, 124 participants). In the long term (> 3 months), we are uncertain about the effect of splinting on symptoms (mean BCTQ SSS 0.64 better with splinting; 95% CI 1.2 better to 0.08 better; 2 studies, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Splinting probably does not improve hand function in the short term and may not improve hand function in the long term. In the short term, the mean BCTQ Functional Status Scale (FSS) (1 to 5, higher is worse; MCID 0.7 points) was 0.24 points better (95% CI 0.44 better to 0.03 better; 6 studies, 306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) with splinting compared with no active treatment. In the long term, the mean BCTQ FSS was 0.25 points better (95% CI 0.68 better to 0.18 worse; 1 study, 34 participants; low-certainty evidence) with splinting compared with no active treatment. Night-time splinting may result in a higher rate of overall improvement in the short term (risk ratio (RR) 3.86, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.51; 1 study, 80 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 2, 95% CI 2 to 2; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain if splinting decreases referral to surgery, RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.58; 3 studies, 243 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Low-certainty evidence from one study suggests that splinting may have a higher rate of adverse events, which were transient, but the 95% CIs included no effect. Seven of 40 participants (18%) reported adverse effects in the splinting group and 0 of 40 participants (0%) in the no active treatment group (RR 15.0, 95% CI 0.89 to 254.13; 1 study, 80 participants).  There was low- to moderate-certainty evidence for the other comparisons: splinting may not provide additional benefits in symptoms or hand function when given together with corticosteroid injection (moderate-certainty evidence) or with rehabilitation (low-certainty evidence); nor when compared with corticosteroid (injection or oral; low certainty), exercises (low certainty), kinesiology taping (low certainty), rigid taping (low certainty), platelet-rich plasma (moderate certainty), or extracorporeal shock wave treatment (moderate certainty). Splinting for 12 weeks may not be better than six weeks, but six months of splinting may be better than six weeks of splinting in improving symptoms and function (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether splinting benefits people with CTS. Limited evidence does not exclude small improvements in CTS symptoms and hand function, but they may not be clinically important, and the clinical relevance of small differences with splinting is unclear. Low-certainty evidence suggests that people may have a greater chance of experiencing overall improvement with night-time splints than no treatment. As splinting is a relatively inexpensive intervention with no plausible long-term harms, small effects could justify its use, particularly when patients are not interested in having surgery or injections. It is unclear if a splint is optimally worn full time or at night-time only and whether long-term use is better than short-term use, but low-certainty evidence suggests that the benefits may manifest in the long term.

Detecting Distal Radius Fractures Using a Segmentation-Based Deep Learning Model.

Deep learning algorithms can be used to classify medical images. In distal radius fracture treatment, fracture detection and radiographic assessment of fracture displacement are critical steps. The aim of this study was to use pixel-level annotations of fractures to develop a deep learning model for precise distal radius fracture detection. We randomly divided 3785 consecutive emergency wrist radiograph examinations from six hospitals to a training set (3399 examinations) and test set (386 examinations). The training set was used to develop the deep learning model and the test set to assess its validity. The consensus of three hand surgeons was used as the gold standard for the test set. The area under the ROC curve was 0.97 (CI 0.95-0.98) and 0.95 (CI 0.92-0.98) for examinations without a cast. Fractures were identified with higher accuracy in the postero-anterior radiographs than in the lateral radiographs. Our deep learning model performed well in our multi-hospital and multi-radiograph system manufacturer settings. Thus, segmentation-based deep learning models may provide additional benefit. Further research is needed with algorithm comparison and external validation.

Editorial Commentary: Arthroscopic Treatment Should No Longer Be Offered to People With Subacromial Impingement.

Arthroscopic treatment should no longer be offered to people with subacromial impingement. In many people, subacromial impingement (or subacromial pain syndrome) is self-limiting and may not require any specific treatment. This is evident by the fact that almost 50% of people with new-onset shoulder pain consult their primary care doctor only once. The best-available evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that glucocorticoid injection provides rapid, modest, short-term pain relief. Exercise therapy has also been found to provide no added benefit over glucocorticoid injection. Subacromial decompression (bursectomy and acromioplasty) for subacromial pain syndrome provides no important benefit on pain, function, or health-related quality of life. Acromioplasty does not improve the outcomes of rotator cuff repair.

Distal biceps tendon repairs and reconstructions-an analysis of demographics, prodromal symptoms and complications.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the demographics, complications and prodromal symptoms (any pain or unpleasant sensation in the area distal biceps tendon preceding the injury) of distal biceps tendon tears (DBTTs) of patients treated with primary repair or Achilles allograft reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 228 consecutive DBTTs in 226 patients from a single centre were evaluated. The demographic data, prodromal symptoms and postoperative adverse events were documented. RESULTS: There were 225 males and 1 female patient. The age distribution showed a bimodal pattern in the whole cohort, but once the 48 (20%) elite athletes were excluded, the age was normally distributed, peaking in the 5th decade. Direct repairs were performed in 184 cases and reconstruction with Achilles tendon allograft in 45 cases. An adverse event was observed in 34 (19%) patients who underwent direct repair and in 3 (7%) cases with graft reconstruction, corresponding to RR of 0.32 (95% CI 0.1-0.96, p = 0.04). Adjusting with the potential confounders (age, occupation and smoking), the OR was 0.35; 95% CI 0.09-1.3, p = 0.11). Adverse events included 28 (12.3% of all adverse events) lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve (LABCN) neurapraxias, 5 (2.1%) other neurapraxias, 6 (2.6%) heterotopic ossifications and 1 (0.4%) re-rupture. Twenty-three (10%) patients reported prodromal symptoms before the tear. CONCLUSIONS: DBTT is a condition that affects men predominantly. The observed bimodal incidence distribution was related to elite athletes, but in the normal population the peak occurs at the age typical to tendinopathies. LABCN neurapraxia was the most common adverse event, and graft use does not seem to predispose to adverse events.

Autologous blood and platelet-rich plasma injection therapy for lateral elbow pain.

BACKGROUND: Autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are commonly used to treat lateral elbow pain (also known as tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis or epicondylalgia). Based on animal models and observational studies, these injections may modulate tendon injury healing, but randomised controlled trials have reported inconsistent results regarding benefit for people with lateral elbow pain. OBJECTIVES: To review current evidence on the benefit and safety of autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection for treatment of people with lateral elbow pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for published trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal for ongoing trials, on 18 September 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing autologous whole blood or PRP injection therapy to another therapy (placebo or active treatment, including non-pharmacological therapies, and comparison between PRP and autologous blood) for lateral elbow pain. The primary comparison was PRP versus placebo. Major outcomes were pain relief (≥ 30% or ≥ 50%), mean pain, mean function, treatment success, quality of life, withdrawal due to adverse events, and adverse events; the primary time point was three months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 studies with 2337 participants; 56% of participants were female, mean age varied between 36 and 53 years, and mean duration of symptoms ranged from 1 to 22 months. Seven trials had three intervention arms. Ten trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to placebo injection (primary comparison). Fifteen trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to glucocorticoid injection. Four studies compared autologous blood to PRP. Two trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection plus tennis elbow strap and exercise versus tennis elbow strap and exercise alone. Two trials compared PRP injection to surgery, and one trial compared PRP injection and dry needling to dry needling alone. Other comparisons include autologous blood versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy; PRP versus arthroscopic surgery; PRP versus laser; and autologous blood versus polidocanol. Most studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection biases, mainly due to inadequate allocation concealment and lack of participant blinding. We found moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) to show that autologous blood or PRP injection probably does not provide clinically significant improvement in pain or function compared with placebo injection at three months. Further, low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggests that PRP may not increase risk for adverse events. We are uncertain whether autologous blood or PRP injection improves treatment success (downgraded for bias, imprecision, and indirectness) or withdrawals due to adverse events (downgraded for bias and twice for imprecision). No studies measured health-related quality of life, and no studies reported pain relief (> 30% or 50%) at three months. At three months, mean pain was 3.7 points (0 to 10; 0 is best) with placebo and 0.16 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 better to 0.29 worse; 8 studies, 523 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute improvement of 1.6% better (6% better to 3% worse). At three months, mean function was 27.5 points (0 to 100; 0 is best) with placebo and 1.86 points better (95% CI 4.9 better to 1.25 worse; 8 studies, 502 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute benefit of 1.9% (5% better to 1% worse), and treatment success was 121 out of 185 (65%) with placebo versus 125 out of 187 (67%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 4 studies, 372 participants), for absolute improvement of 0% (11.1% lower to 12.4% higher). Regarding harm, we found very low-certainty evidence to suggest that we are uncertain whether withdrawal rates due to adverse events differed. Low-certainty evidence suggests that autologous blood or PRP injection may not increase adverse events compared with placebo injection. Withdrawal due to adverse events occurred in 3 out of 39 (8%) participants treated with placebo versus 1 out of 41 (2%) treated with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.92; 1 study), for an absolute difference of 5.2% fewer (7.5% fewer to 14.8% more). Adverse event rates were 35 out of 208 (17%) with placebo versus 41 out of 217 (19%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.72; 5 studies; 425 participants), for an absolute difference of 2.4% more (4% fewer to 12% more). At six and twelve months, no clinically important benefit for mean pain or function was observed with autologous blood or PRP injection compared with placebo injection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Data in this review do not support the use of autologous blood or PRP injection for treatment of lateral elbow pain. These injections probably provide little or no clinically important benefit for pain or function (moderate-certainty evidence), and it is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence) whether they improve treatment success and pain relief > 50%, or increase withdrawal due to adverse events. Although risk for harm may not be increased compared with placebo injection (low-certainty evidence), injection therapies cause pain and carry a small risk of infection. With no evidence of benefit, the costs and risks are not justified.

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for pain, Constant-Murley score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with subacromial pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The results of clinical trials should be assessed for both statistical significance and importance of observed effects to patients. Minimal important difference (MID) is a threshold denoting a difference that is important to patients. Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) is a threshold above which patients feel well. OBJECTIVE: To determine MID and PASS for common outcome instruments in patients with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS). METHODS: We used data from the FIMPACT trial, a randomised controlled trial of treatment for SAPS that included 193 patients. The outcomes were shoulder pain at rest and on arm activity, both measured with the 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS), the Constant-Murley score (CS), and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). The transition question was a five-point global rating of change. We used three anchor-based methods to determine the MID for improvement: the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the mean difference of change and the mean change methods. For the PASS, we used the ROC and 75th percentile methods and calculated estimates using two different anchor question thresholds. RESULTS: Different MID methods yielded different estimates. The ROC method yielded the smallest estimates for MID: 20 mm for shoulder pain on arm activity, 10 points for CS and 1.5 points for SST, with good to excellent discrimination (areas under curve (AUCs) from 0.86 to 0.94). We could not establish a reliable MID for pain at rest. The PASS estimates were consistent between methods. The ROC method PASS thresholds using a conservative anchor question threshold were 2 mm for pain at rest, 9 mm for pain on activity, 80 points for CS and 11 points for SST, with AUCs from 0.74 to 0.83. CONCLUSION: We recommend the smallest estimate from different methods as the MID, because it is very unlikely that changes smaller than the smallest MID estimate are important to patients: 20 mm for pain VAS on arm activity, 10 points for CS and 1.5 points for SST. We recommend PASS estimates of 9 mm for pain on arm activity, 80 points for CS, and 11 points for SST. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00428870 (first registered January 29, 2007).

Distal biceps hook test - Sensitivity in acute and chronic tears and ability to predict the need for graft reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity of distal biceps hook test - O'Driscoll hook test - in a retrospective series of acute and chronic distal biceps tendon tears and investigate the ability of the test to predict the need for graft reconstruction. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 234 consecutive distal biceps tendon tears operated in a single centre. The result of O'Driscoll hook test and perioperative findings of distal biceps were documented in standard fashion. RESULTS: The perioperative and O'Driscoll hook test data were available in 202 cases. The sensitivity for the distal biceps hook test was 78% in all tears and 83% in complete tears. The sensitivity was significantly lower in partial tears (30%) and in cases where lacertus fibrosus was found to be intact (45 %). When O'Driscoll hook test was positive and the delay from initial injury to operative intervention was eight weeks or more, there was over 75% probability of achilles tendon allograft reconstruction. When O'Driscoll hook test was negative, the probability of reconstruction even after 12 weeks' delay was only 20%. DISCUSSION: O'Driscoll hook test is useful when establishing distal biceps tendon tear diagnosis, but a negative test does not exclude rupture. In delayed cases, a positive test may predict the need for reconstruction.

Surgery for rotator cuff tears.

BACKGROUND: This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews of interventions for shoulder disorders. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of rotator cuff repair with or without subacromial decompression in the treatment of rotator cuff tears of the shoulder. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry unrestricted by date or language until 8 January 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including adults with full-thickness rotator cuff tears and assessing the effect of rotator cuff repair compared to placebo, no treatment, or any other treatment were included. As there were no trials comparing surgery with placebo, the primary comparison was rotator cuff repair with or without subacromial decompression versus non-operative treatment (exercises with or without glucocorticoid injection). Other comparisons were rotator cuff repair and acromioplasty versus rotator cuff repair alone, and rotator cuff repair and subacromial decompression versus subacromial decompression alone. Major outcomes were mean pain, shoulder function, quality of life, participant-rated global assessment of treatment success, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint for this review was one year. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials with 1007 participants. Three trials compared rotator cuff repair with subacromial decompression followed by exercises with exercise alone. These trials included 339 participants with full-thickness rotator cuff tears diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasound examination. One of the three trials also provided up to three glucocorticoid injections in the exercise group. All surgery groups received tendon repair with subacromial decompression and the postoperative exercises were similar to the exercises provided for the non-operative groups. Five trials (526 participants) compared repair with acromioplasty versus repair alone; and one trial (142 participants) compared repair with subacromial decompression versus subacromial decompression alone. The mean age of trial participants ranged between 56 and 68 years, and females comprised 29% to 56% of the participants. Symptom duration varied from a mean of 10 months up to 28 months. Two trials excluded tears with traumatic onset of symptoms. One trial defined a minimum duration of symptoms of six months and required a trial of conservative therapy before inclusion. The trials included mainly repairable full-thickness supraspinatus tears, six trials specifically excluded tears involving the subscapularis tendon. All trials were at risk of bias for several criteria, most notably due to lack of participant and personnel blinding, but also for other reasons such as unclearly reported methods of random sequence generation or allocation concealment (six trials), incomplete outcome data (three trials), selective reporting (six trials), and other biases (six trials). Our main comparison was subacromial decompression versus non-operative treatment and results are reported for the 12 month follow up. At one year, moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) from 3 trials with 258 participants indicates that surgery probably provides little or no improvement in pain; mean pain (range 0 to 10, higher scores indicate more pain) was 1.6 points with non-operative treatment and 0.87 points better (0.43 better to 1.30 better) with surgery.. Mean function (zero to 100, higher score indicating better outcome) was 72 points with non-operative treatment and 6 points better (2.43 better to 9.54 better) with surgery (3 trials; 269 participants), low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Participant-rated global success rate was 873/1000 after non-operative treatment and 943/1000 after surgery corresponding to (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.22; low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Health-related quality of life was 57.5 points (SF-36 mental component score, 0 to 100, higher score indicating better quality of life) with non-operative treatment and 1.3 points worse (4.5 worse to 1.9 better) with surgery (1 trial; 103 participants), low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). We were unable to estimate the risk of adverse events and serious adverse events as only one event was reported across the trials (very low-certainty evidence; downgraded once due to bias and twice due to very serious imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At the moment, we are uncertain whether rotator cuff repair surgery provides clinically meaningful benefits to people with symptomatic tears; it may provide little or no clinically important benefits with respect to pain, function, overall quality of life or participant-rated global assessment of treatment success when compared with non-operative treatment. Surgery may not improve shoulder pain or function compared with exercises, with or without glucocorticoid injections. The trials included have methodology concerns and none included a placebo control. They included participants with mostly small degenerative tears involving the supraspinatus tendon and the conclusions of this review may not be applicable to traumatic tears, large tears involving the subscapularis tendon or young people. Furthermore, the trials did not assess if surgery could prevent arthritic changes in long-term follow-up. Further well-designed trials in this area that include a placebo-surgery control group and long follow-up are needed to further increase certainty about the effects of surgery for rotator cuff tears.

Subacromial decompression surgery for rotator cuff disease.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for rotator cuff disease is usually used after non-operative interventions have failed, although our Cochrane Review, first published in 2007, found that there was uncertain clinical benefit following subacromial decompression surgery. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the available evidence of the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery compared with placebo, no intervention or non-surgical interventions in people with rotator cuff disease (excluding full thickness rotator cuff tears). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry from 2006 until 22 October 2018, unrestricted by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with rotator cuff disease (excluding full-thickness tears), that compared subacromial decompression surgery with placebo, no treatment, or any other non-surgical interventions. As it is least prone to bias, subacromial decompression compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Other comparisons were subacromial decompression versus exercises or non-operative treatment. Major outcomes were mean pain scores, shoulder function, quality of life, participant global assessment of success, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint for this review was one year. For serious adverse events, we also included data from prospective cohort studies designed to record harms that evaluated subacromial decompression surgery or shoulder arthroscopy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight trials, with a total of 1062 randomised participants with rotator cuff disease, all with subacromial impingement. Two trials (506 participants) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression with arthroscopy only (placebo surgery), with all groups receiving postoperative exercises. These trials included a third treatment group: no treatment (active monitoring) in one and exercises in the other. Six trials (556 participants) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression followed by exercises with exercises alone. Two of these trials included a third arm: sham laser in one and open subacromial decompression in the other.Trial size varied from 42 to 313 participants. Participant mean age ranged between 42 and 65 years. Only two trials reported mean symptom duration (18 to 22 months in one trial and 30 to 31 months in the other), two did not report duration and four reported it categorically.Both placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias for the comparison of surgery versus placebo surgery. The other trials were at high risk of bias for several criteria, most notably at risk of performance or detection bias due to lack of participant and personnel blinding. We have restricted the reporting of results of benefits in the Abstract to the placebo-controlled trials.Compared with placebo, high-certainty evidence indicates that subacromial decompression provides no improvement in pain, shoulder function, or health-related quality of life up to one year, and probably no improvement in global success (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to imprecision).At one year, mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain), was 2.9 points after placebo surgery and 0.26 better (0.84 better to 0.33 worse), after subacromial decompression (284 participants), an absolute difference of 3% (8% better to 3% worse), and relative difference of 4% (12% better to 5% worse). At one year, mean function (on a scale 0 to 100, higher score indicating better outcome), was 69 points after placebo surgery and 2.8 better (1.4 worse to 6.9 better), after surgery (274 participants), an absolute difference of 3% (7% better to 1% worse), and relative difference of 9% (22% better to 4% worse). Global success rate was 97/148 (or 655 per 1000), after placebo and 101/142 (or 708 per 1000) after surgery corresponding to RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.27). Health-related quality of life was 0.73 units (European Quality of Life EQ-5D, -0.59 to 1, higher score indicating better quality of life), after placebo and 0.03 units worse (0.011 units worse to 0.06 units better), after subacromial decompression (285 participants), an absolute difference of 1.3% (5% worse to 2.5% better), and relative difference of 4% (15% worse to 7% better).Adverse events including frozen shoulder or transient minor complications of surgery were reported in approximately 3% of participants across treatment groups in two randomised controlled trials, but due to low event rates we are uncertain if the risks differ between groups: 5/165 (37 per 1000) reported adverse events with subacromial decompression and 9/241 (34 per 1000) with placebo or non-operative treatment, RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.65) (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to imprecision). The trials did not report serious adverse events.Based upon moderate-certainty evidence from two observational trials from the same prospective surgery registry, which also included other shoulder arthroscopic procedures (downgraded for indirectness), the incidence proportion of serious adverse events within 30 days following surgery was 0.5% (0.4% to 0.7%; data collected 2006 to 2011), or 0.6% (0.5 % to 0.7%; data collected 2011 to 2013). Serious adverse events such as deep infection, pulmonary embolism, nerve injury, and death have been observed in participants following shoulder surgery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data in this review do not support the use of subacromial decompression in the treatment of rotator cuff disease manifest as painful shoulder impingement. High-certainty evidence shows that subacromial decompression does not provide clinically important benefits over placebo in pain, function or health-related quality of life. Including results from open-label trials (with high risk of bias) did not change the estimates considerably. Due to imprecision, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate for global assessment of treatment success; there was probably no clinically important benefit in this outcome either compared with placebo, exercises or non-operative treatment.Adverse event rates were low, 3% or less across treatment groups in the trials, which is consistent with adverse event rates reported in the two observational studies. Although precise estimates are unknown, the risk of serious adverse events is likely less than 1%.

Analysis of magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed soft tissue injury pattern in simple elbow dislocations.

BACKGROUND: The elbow is the second most commonly dislocated joint. Stability depends on the degree of soft tissue injury, with 2 proposed patterns, one starting laterally and the other medially. The purpose of this study was to describe the injured structures observed in magnetic resonance images (MRIs) in a prospective cohort of simple elbow dislocations. METHODS: We evaluated 17 consecutive cases of simple elbow dislocations. Two musculoskeletal radiologists assessed the initial x-ray images and MRIs performed for all elbows. Radiologists evaluated the following soft tissue structures: medial collateral ligament complex (MCL), flexor-pronator muscle mass origin, anterior capsule (AC), posterior capsule, lateral collateral ligament complex (LCL), and extensor muscle mass origin. The radiologists were blinded to the study hypothesis. RESULTS: The initial radiographs in 16 patients showed the dislocation was posterolateral in 12, posterior in 3, and posteromedial in 1. We observed complete AC tear in 12 patients, MCL in 10, and LCL in 9. The inter-rater reliability for the radiologists was 0.70 (substantial) for MRI. CONCLUSIONS: In our series after simple elbow dislocation, complete AC tears were most common, followed by MCL and LCL tears. No single mechanism-related soft tissue injury pattern of simple elbow dislocation was observed, and different grades of soft tissue injury exist.

Comparison of Expert Opinion, Majority Rule, and a Clinical Prediction Rule to Estimate Distal Radius Malalignment.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the ability of individual surgeons [expert opinion (EO)] to predict distal radius fracture (DRF) healing above a threshold malalignment compared with the majority prediction of the group of surgeons ["majority rule," (MR)] and a statistically derived clinical prediction formula [Edinburgh wrist calculator (EWC)]. DESIGN: Comparative diagnostic study from prospectively collected data of consecutive patients. SETTING: Two academic level 1 and 1 academic level 2 trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen surgeons assessed probability of healing above a threshold malalignment (often referred to as fracture "instability") for 71 fractures based on radiographs taken initially and after closed reduction and cast application. The probability of losing alignment according to the EWC was dichotomized (likely to lose alignment ≥0.5 vs. unlikely <0.5). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy parameters of prediction of EO, MR, and EWC. RESULTS: EWC and MR demonstrated higher accuracy (0.77 and 0.75, respectively) and sensitivity (0.95 and 0.79, respectively) compared with EO (accuracy, 0.66 and sensitivity, 0.58) for predicting healing above the threshold malalignment. Reliability was higher for MR (kappa 0.88) than for EWC (kappa 0.63) or EO (kappa coefficient 0.44). The negative predictive value of the EWC for healing above a threshold of malalignment was excellent (0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon opinion is not reliable or accurate for predicting loss of alignment of a DRF above a threshold malalignment after closed reduction and immobilization. Dichotomized EWC may be a useful tool in predicting loss of alignment (instability) of a DRF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Distal Inside-Out Epineural Sliding Technique to Repair Segmental Nerve Defects.

Background: The repair of a segmental peripheral nerve injury is a clinical challenge. Several studies have been performed to determine superior methods for overcoming nerve gaps. The purpose of this study was to investigate if the inside-out slided epineurium of the distal segment of an injured nerve can serve as a conduit to bridge a short nerve defect (10 mm). Methods: Nineteen sciatic nerves in Sprague-Dawley rats were transected, and a 10-mm gap was left between the ends. A section of distal epineurium was pulled inside out to bridge the gap. Walking track analysis was performed, and the sciatic function index (SFI) was calculated. Wet muscle mass and withdrawal reflex were measured. The density of axon fibers at different levels of repaired nerves was determined, and histological analysis was performed at 16 weeks. Results: The mean SFI improved from -81.0 at 4 weeks to 36.3 at 16 weeks. The axon densities showed regeneration through the epineural tube, and 5 of the rats demonstrated a withdrawal reflex. The weight of the tibialis anterior muscle of the injured limb at 16 weeks was 59% that of the uninjured side. Conclusions: The distal epineural sheath tube provided a size-matched conduit between the nerve stumps, with no histological donor-site morbidity. Histologically, regeneration occurred through the epineural tube without neuroma formation, and functional recovery was comparable to that of previous studies of nerve repair techniques. Technique may be an addition to the armamentarium of tools used to treat segmental nerve defects.

The value of the tender muscle sign in detecting motor recovery after peripheral nerve reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Squeezing a denervated muscle a few weeks after nerve repair produces a characteristic response in patients. This response is observed before any clinical evidence of motor recovery. We called this response the tender muscle sign (TMS) and wanted to determine whether this sign was related to the recovery of motor power. METHODS: We studied 31 adults with unilateral brachial plexus injuries who underwent 50 procedures for reinnervation of the supraspinatus, deltoid, and biceps. Follow-up was monthly for the first year and at 3-monthly intervals thereafter. Average duration of follow-up was 3.3 years. The TMS was sought at each visit. The presence of the TMS, when it was first observed, and time to Medical Research Council (MRC) grade 1 and 3 recoveries were recorded. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of TMS for motor recovery were calculated. RESULTS: The TMS was always detected earlier than palpable muscle contraction. It was significantly associated with recovery of MRC grade 1 and 3 motor power. The sensitivity of TMS for MRC grade 1 recovery was 96% and specificity was 100%. For MRC grade 3 recovery, it had 97% sensitivity and 27% specificity. The positive predictive value was 100% for MRC grade 1 recovery and 83% for MRC grade 3. The negative predictive value was 50% for MRC grade 1 recovery and 75% for MRC grade 3. CONCLUSIONS: Previous studies have demonstrated the presence of nocioceptive receptors in human skeletal muscle. The reinnervation of these receptors by the regenerating axons results in cramp-like tenderness when the muscle is squeezed. This response is specific to a reinnervated muscle and cannot be elicited in denervated or normally innervated muscle. The TMS is a simple, clear, and early indicator of muscle reinnervation that is useful in monitoring motor recovery after nerve regeneration. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic IV.