Vitamin D Deficiency Leads to Poorer Health Outcomes and Greater Length of Stay After Total Knee Arthroplasty and Supplementation Improves Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency is increasingly identified as a predictor of poorer outcomes in musculoskeletal disease affecting as many as 1 in 4 people. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on outcomes after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: A targeted search of terms related to vitamin D and TKA outcomes was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and British Orthopaedic Association databases. The results were analyzed using forest plots with I2 heterogeneity statistics and pooled effects with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p values. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 146,054 patients with 150,107 TKRs were analyzed in 10 studies that complied with the inclusion criteria, of which 3 were suitable for meta-analysis. Of these, 4 of the 10 studies showed that vitamin D deficiency resulted in poorer functional outcome scores (Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Knee Society Scoring System, and American Knee Society scores), as well as increased risk of revision surgery, incidence of joint infection, and postoperative stiffness. Meta-analysis of length of hospital stay (LOS) demonstrated a significant increase in LOS in patients with vitamin D deficiency (standardized mean difference, -0.54, 95% CI, -0.69 to -0.38, p < 0.00001). Furthermore, outcomes were improved with vitamin D supplementation in 6 of 10 studies. CONCLUSION: Vitamin D deficiency results in poorer outcomes of primary TKA, with improved outcomes after supplementation. Further studies should examine the role of preoperative vitamin D screening and/or perioperative supplementation in primary TKA and standardize outcome measures to assess their effect. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I/II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Orthopaedic Eponyms: A Tool of the Past.

Eponyms are commonplace in the medical vernacular, however, their use has become increasingly controversial amongst clinicians. Whilst some view them as an honour bestowed on those whose achievements deserve recognition, others see them as thwarted with problems due to confusion, imprecision and unwittingly applauding controversial figures. Nevertheless, the history and culture retained within eponyms define modern-day medicine. To identify current trends in understanding of eponyms, we presented a questionnaire of orthopaedic eponyms and their associated imaging to unspecialised trainees, specialist orthopaedic trainees, and qualified consultants. Eponymous terms were poorly understood at all levels of experience, with- third and fourth-year Orthopaedic trainees (specialist trainee years five and six (ST5/ST6)) being outperformed (22.3%) by non-specialist postgraduate doctors with two or more years of experience (foundation year two (F2) and core surgery year two (CT2)) (29.3%). Based on these trends we present a further narrative review of the challenges eponyms present, whilst justifying their continued use to acknowledge the origins of our discipline, from the favourable to shameful.

Scaffold-associated procedures are superior to microfracture in managing focal cartilage defects in the knee: A systematic review & meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Debate continues as to whether surgical treatment with chondral-regeneration devices is superior to microfracture for focal articular cartilage defects in the knee. PURPOSE: To evaluate the superiority of scaffold-associated chondral-regeneration procedures over microfracture by assessing: (1) Patient-reported outcomes; (2) Intervention failure; (3) Histological quality of cartilage repair. STUDY DESIGN: A three-concept keyword search strategy was designed, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines: (i) knee (ii) microfracture (iii) scaffold. Four databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus) were searched for comparative clinical trials (Level I-III evidence). Critical appraisal used two Cochrane tools: the Risk of Bias tool (RoB2) for randomized control trials and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I). Study heterogeneity permitted qualitative analysis with the exception of three patient-reported scores, for which a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were identified (1699 patients, age range 18-66 years): ten randomized control trials and eleven non-randomized study interventions. Meta-analyses of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee Injury And Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for pain and activities of daily living, and Lysholm score demonstrated statistically significant improvement in outcomes for scaffold procedures compared to microfracture at two years. No statistical difference was seen at five years. CONCLUSION: Despite the limitations of study heterogeneity, scaffold-associated procedures appear to be superior to MF in terms of patient-reported outcomes at two years though similar at five years. Future evaluation would benefit from studies using validated clinical scoring systems, reporting failure, adverse events and long-term clinical follow up to determine technique safety and superiority.

A systematic review of clinical outcomes for outpatient vs. inpatient shoulder arthroplasty.

Background: Outpatient shoulder arthroplasty is growing in popularity as a cost-effective and potentially equally safe alternative to inpatient arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to investigate literature relating to outpatient shoulder arthroplasty, looking at clinical outcomes, complications, readmission, and cost compared to inpatient arthroplasty. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 6 April 2020. Methodological quality was assessed using MINORS and GRADE criteria. Results: We included 17 studies, with 11 included in meta-analyses and 6 in narrative review. A meta-analysis of hospital readmissions demonstrated no statistically significant difference between outpatient and inpatient cohorts (OR = 0.89, p = 0.49). Pooled post-operative complications identified decreased complications in those undergoing outpatient surgery (OR = 0.70, p = 0.02). Considerable cost saving of between $3614 and $53,202 (19.7-69.9%) per patient were present in the outpatient setting. Overall study quality was low and presented a serious risk of bias. Discussion: Shoulder arthroplasty in the outpatient setting appears to be as safe as shoulder arthroplasty in the inpatient setting, with a significant reduction in cost. However, this is based on low quality evidence and high risk of bias suggests further research is needed to substantiate these findings.

Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Therapy for Muscular Strength, Hypertrophy, and Endurance in Healthy and Special Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Blood flow restriction (BFR) training is an increasingly applied tool with potential benefits in muscular hypertrophy, strength, and endurance. This study investigates the effectiveness of BFR training relative to other forms of training on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and endurance. DATA SOURCES: We performed systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed and assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. MAIN RESULTS: We included 53 randomized controlled trials with 31 included in meta-analyses. For muscular strength comparing low-intensity BFR (LI-BFR) training with high-intensity resistance training (HIRT), the pooled mean difference (MD) for 1 repetition maximum was 5.34 kg (95% CI, 2.58-8.09; P < 0.01) favoring HIRT. When comparing LI-BFR training with HIRT for torque, the MD was 6.35 N·m (95% CI, 0.5-12.3; P = 0.04) also favoring HIRT. However, comparing LI-BFR with low-intensity resistance training (LIRT) for torque, there was a MD of 9.94 N·m (95% CI, 5.43-14.45; P < 0.01) favoring BFR training. Assessing muscle hypertrophy, the MD in cross-sectional area was 0.96 cm2 (95% CI, 0.21-1.7; P = 0.01) favoring pooled BFR training compared with nonocclusive training. Assessing endurance, V̇o2 maximum demonstrated a greater mean increase of 0.37 mL/kg/min (95% CI, -0.97 to 3.17; P = 0.64) in BFR endurance training compared with endurance training alone. CONCLUSION: Blood flow restriction training produced increases in muscular strength, hypertrophy, and endurance. Comparing LI-BFR training with HIRT, HIRT was a significantly better training modality for increasing muscle hypertrophy and strength. However, LI-BFR was superior when compared with a similar low-intensity protocol. Blood flow restriction training is potentially beneficial to those unable to tolerate the high loads of HIRT; however, better understanding of its risk to benefit ratio is needed before clinical application. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1.

A systematic review of outcomes of wrist arthrodesis and wrist arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Surgical management of end-stage rheumatoid wrists is a contentious topic. The standard surgical treatment has traditionally been wrist arthrodesis. Wrist arthroplasty, however, offers an alternative that preserves some wrist motion. A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases was conducted. Data from 23 studies representing 343 cases of wrist arthrodesis and 618 cases of wrist arthroplasty were included. Complication rates were 17% for arthrodesis and 19% for arthroplasty, and both procedures were effective at alleviating pain and improving grip strength. Functional assessment by Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and Patient-Related Wrist Evaluation of arthroplasty patients revealed clinically meaningful functional improvement compared with preoperative measurements. In contrast to previously published findings both procedures demonstrated comparable complication rates. While this can be speculated to be from advancements in prosthetics, robust long-term follow-up data on wrist arthroplasty are not available yet.