The Use of Osteobiologics in Single versus Multi-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVES: In this study we assessed evidence for the use of osteobiologics in single vs multi-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients with cervical spine degeneration. The primary objective was to compare fusion rates after single and multi-level surgery with different osteobiologics. Secondary objectives were to compare differences in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications. METHODS: After a global team of reviewers was selected, a systematic review using different repositories was performed, confirming to PRISMA and GRADE guidelines. In total 1206 articles were identified and after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 11 articles were eligible for analysis. Extracted data included fusion rates, definition of fusion, patient reported outcome measures, types of osteobiologics used, complications, adverse events and revisions. RESULTS: Fusion rates ranged from 87.7% to 100% for bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2) and 88.6% to 94.7% for demineralized bone matrix, while fusion rates reported for other osteobiologics were lower. All included studies showed PROMs improved significantly for each osteobiologic. However, no differences were reported when comparing osteobiologics, or when comparing single vs multi-level surgery specifically. CONCLUSION: The highest fusion rates after 2-level ACDF for cervical spine degeneration were reported when BMP-2 was used. However, PROMs did not differ between the different osteobiologics. Further blinded randomized trials should be performed to compare the use of BMP-2 in single vs multi-level ACDF specifically.

Mid-term effect of total knee arthroplasty with and without tourniquet use on prosthesis survival, complications and functional outcome: A prospective cohort study of 511 total knee arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: A tourniquet is often used to create a bloodless surgical field during total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It is still debated whether tourniquet use improves durability of cemented implant fixation and thereby prosthesis survival. Some studies showed tourniquet application has a negative impact on post-operative wound healing, pain and function, whilst other publications contradict this. However, no previous studies evaluated the effect of tourniquet use on prosthesis survival and mid-term functional outcome specifically. METHODS: In this longitudinal observational cohort study 115 patients (116 knees) undergoing TKA without tourniquet use were compared with 374 patients (395 knees) with a tourniquet. Prosthesis survival, revision risks and complications were analysed through chart review after ameanfollow-up period of5.3 years.Additionally, patient reported outcome measures regarding knee functionality and health status (PROMs; KOOS, OKS, EQ-5D, SF-12) werecollected prospectively. RESULTS: Both groups had an equal overall re-operation rate of 4.3% and showed similar revision rates for aseptic loosening as well as for other causes. In the tourniquet group a higher complication rate (14.7% vs 10.3%) was observed. The majority was urinary retention requiring bladder catheterization. Both groups showed comparable, improved post-operative functional results compared to the pre-operative state for all PROMs atall timepoints. CONCLUSIONS: In this study TKA without tourniquet use yielded similar mid-term results as TKA with tourniquet use with regard to prosthesis survival, reoperations, complications, knee functionality and health status.

Results of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stemless shoulder arthroplasty relies solely on cementless metaphyseal fixation and is designed to avoid stem-related problem such as intraoperative fractures, loosening, stress shielding or stress-risers for periprosthetic fractures.Many designs are currently on the market, although only six anatomic and two reverse arthroplasty designs have results published with a minimum of two-year follow-up.Compared to stemmed designs, clinical outcome is equally good using stemless designs in the short and medium-term follow-up, which is also the case for overall complication and revision rates.Intraoperative fracture rate is lower in stemless compared to stemmed designs, most likely due to the absence of intramedullary preparation and of the implantation of a stem.Radiologic abnormalities around the humeral implant are less frequent compared to stemmed implants, possibly related to the closer resemblance to native anatomy.Between stemless implants, several significant differences were found in terms of clinical outcome, complication and revision rates, although the level of evidence is low with high study heterogeneity; therefore, firm conclusions could not be drawn.There is a need for well-designed long-term randomized trials with sufficient power in order to assess the superiority of stemless over conventional arthroplasty, and of one design over another. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:35-49. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200067.