Immobilization in External Rotation Versus Arthroscopic Stabilization After Primary Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: A Systematic Review of Level 1 and 2 Studies.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic stabilization has been established as a superior treatment option for primary glenohumeral instability when compared with immobilization in internal rotation. However, immobilization in external rotation (ER) has recently gained interest as a viable nonoperative treatment option for patients with shoulder instability. PURPOSE: To compare the rates of recurrent instability and subsequent surgery in patients undergoing treatment for primary anterior shoulder dislocation with arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization in ER. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies that'evaluated patients being treated for primary anterior glenohumeral dislocation with either arthroscopic stabilization or immobilization in ER. The search phrase used various combinations of the keywords/phrases "primary closed reduction,""anterior shoulder dislocation,""traumatic,""primary,""treatment,""management,""immobilization,""external rotation,""surgical,""operative,""nonoperative," and "conservative." Inclusion criteria included patients undergoing treatment for primary anterior glenohumeral joint dislocation with either immobilization in ER or arthroscopic stabilization. Rates of recurrent instability, subsequent stabilization surgery, return to sports, positive postintervention apprehension tests, and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: The 30 studies that met inclusion criteria included 760 patients undergoing arthroscopic stabilization (mean age, 23.1 years; mean follow-up time, 55.1 months) and 409 patients undergoing immobilization in ER (mean age, 29.8 years; mean follow-up time, 28.8 months). Overall, 8.8% of operative patients experienced recurrent instability at latest follow-up compared with 21.3% of patients who had undergone ER immobilization (P < .0001). Similarly, 5.7% of operative patients had undergone a subsequent stabilization procedure at latest follow-up compared with 11.3% of patients who had undergone ER immobilization (P = .0015). A higher rate of return to sports was found in the operative group (P < .05), but no other differences were found between groups. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing arthroscopic treatment for primary anterior glenohumeral dislocation with arthroscopic stabilization can be expected to experience significantly lower rates of recurrent instability and subsequent stabilization procedures compared with patients undergoing ER immobilization.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Hyaluronic Acid for Hip Osteoarthritis Yields Similarly Beneficial Short-Term Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Level I and II Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to compare the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical efficacy of PRP and HA injections for hip OA. The search phrase used was hip, osteoarthritis, platelet-rich plasma, hyaluronic acid, randomized. Patients were assessed based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, and the Harris Hip Score (HHS). Subanalyses were performed for any outcome score in which ≥3 studies reported results. RESULTS: Six studies (5 level I, 1 level II) met inclusion criteria, including 211 patients undergoing intra-articular injection with PRP (mean age 60.0 years, mean follow-up 12.2 months) and 197 patients with HA (mean age 62.3 years, mean follow-up 11.9 months). No significant differences were found in the weighted improvement of any outcome score (WOMAC, VAS, or HHS) from preinjection to postinjection between groups. When excluding a study with the highest risk of bias to eliminate heterogeneity, pooled subanalysis demonstrated no significant differences in WOMAC subscores between PRP and HA groups. Similarly, in a pooled subanalysis that isolated patients treated with leukocyte-poor PRP, no significant differences in WOMAC subscores were found between PRP and HA groups. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing treatment for hip OA with either PRP or HA injections can expect to experience similarly beneficial short-term clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, systematic review of level I and II studies.

Knotted Transosseous-Equivalent Technique for Rotator Cuff Repair Shows Superior Biomechanical Properties Compared With a Knotless Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical properties of the knotted versus knotless transosseous-equivalent (TOE) techniques for rotator cuff repair (RCR). METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies that compared the biomechanical properties of knotted and knotless TOE RCR techniques. The search phrase used was as follows: (Double Row) AND (rotator cuff) AND (repair) AND (biomechanical). Evaluated properties included ultimate load to failure, cyclic displacement, stiffness, footprint characteristics, and failure mode. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 67 specimens in each group. Of 6 studies reporting on ultimate load to failure, 4 found tendons repaired with the knotted TOE technique to experience significantly higher ultimate load to failure compared with knotless TOE repairs (knotted range, 323.5-549.0 N; knotless range, 166.0-416.8 N; P < .05). Of 6 studies reporting on failure stiffness, 2 found knotted TOE repairs to have significantly higher failure stiffness compared with knotless TOE repairs (knotted range, 30.0-241.8 N/mm; knotless range, 28.0-182.5 N/mm; P < .05), whereas 1 study found significantly higher failure stiffness in knotless TOE repairs compared with knotted TOE repairs (P = .039). Cyclic gap formation favored the knotted TOE group in 2 of 3 studies (knotted range, 0.6-5.2 mm; knotless range, 0.4-9.1 mm; P < .05). The most common mode of failure in both groups was suture tendon tear. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the included cadaveric studies, rotator cuff tendons repaired via the knotted TOE technique display superior time-zero biomechanical properties, including greater ultimate load to failure, compared with rotator cuffs repaired via the knotless TOE technique. Suture tearing through the tendon remains a common failure method for both techniques. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this systematic review provide helpful insight into the biomechanical differences between 2 popular techniques for RCR. Although these results should be carefully considered by surgeons who are using either of these techniques in the operating room, they should not be mistaken for direct clinical applicability because cadaveric studies may not directly correlate to clinical outcomes.