No difference in time-dependent improvement in functional outcome following closing wedge versus opening wedge high tibial osteotomy: a randomised controlled trial with two-year follow-up.

AIMS: The aim of this prospective randomised study was to compare the time course of clinical improvement during the first two years following a closing or opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO). It was hypothesised that there would be no differences in clinical outcome between the two techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2007 and 2013, 70 consecutive patients were randomly allocated to undergo either a closing or opening wedge HTO. All patients had medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA), and were aged between 30 years and 60 years. They were evaluated by independent investigators pre-operatively and at three and six months, and one and two years post-operatively using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Lysholm score, the Tegner activity score, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale and range of movement (ROM). RESULTS: There were no significant differences at any time between the two techniques for any clinical outcome score (p > 0.05). The mean scores for all the systems, except UCLA and Tegner, significantly improved until six months post-operatively (p < 0.001). For some scores, the improvement continued until one and two years. CONCLUSION: This prospective randomised study suggests that there are no differences in the time course of the clinical improvement between the closing and opening wedge techniques for HTO during the first two post-operative years. Patients can expect continued improvement in physical function for between six months and one year after HTO regardless of the technique used. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1157-66.

Randomized clinical trial on the postoperative use of an abdominal binder after laparoscopic umbilical and epigastric hernia repair.

PURPOSE: Application of an abdominal binder is often part of a standard postoperative regimen after ventral hernia repair to reduce pain and seroma formation. However, there is lack of evidence of the clinical effects. The aim of the present study was to investigate the pain- and seroma-reducing effect of an abdominal binder in patients undergoing laparoscopic umbilical or epigastric hernia repair. METHODS: Based on power analysis, a minimum of 54 patients undergoing laparoscopic umbilical and epigastric hernia repair were to be included. Patients were randomized to abdominal binders vs. no abdominal binders during the first postoperative week. Standardized surgical technique, anaesthesia, and analgesic regimens were used and study observers were blinded towards the intervention. Postoperative pain (visual analogue score) on day 1 was the primary outcome. In addition, ultrasonographic evaluation of seroma formation and several subjective patient-related parameters were registered. Furthermore, patients in the abdominal binder group were asked to rate benefits or discomforts of wearing the binder. RESULTS: Data from 56 patients (abdominal binder, n = 28; no binder, n = 28) were available for analysis. No significant intergroup differences in postoperative pain or any of the other surgical outcomes, including seroma formation, were found. However, the abdominal binder group reported subjective beneficial effect of wearing the binder in 24 of the 28 patients (86%). No adverse effects of the abdominal binder were found. CONCLUSIONS: There were no effects of an abdominal binder on pain, movement limitation, fatigue, seroma formation, general well-being, or quality of life. However, most patients claimed a subjective beneficial effect of using their abdominal binder.