RESUMO
PURPOSE: To review published literature to identify and evaluate the effect of virtual reality (complete immersion) and augmented reality (overlay of digital information onto the physical world) simulators on intraoperative use for orthopaedic surgeons, orthopaedic surgical education, and athletic training. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify studies, published since 2014, that evaluated the role of augmented/virtual reality on intraoperative use for orthopaedic surgeons, orthopaedic surgical education, and athletic training. RESULTS: Virtual reality (VR) simulators provide 3-dimensional graphical simulation of the physical world, and augmented reality (AR) simulators overlay digital information onto the physical world. Simulators can include interactive features (i.e., replication of intraoperative bleeding), haptic feedback, and unrestricted task repetition, and they can record, compare, and analyze performance while being easily accessible and eliminating the need for the presence of a mentor or coach. Four studies reported on VR for intraoperative use, 47 studies on surgical education, and 10 studies on athletic training. Two studies revealed the advantages of using VR simulation during intraoperative procedures, specifically showcasing its benefits for elbow arthroscopy, while 2 studies demonstrated similar positive outcomes for hip arthroscopy. Seventeen studies demonstrated that a VR simulator could be a beneficial tool to assist in surgical education for the knee, while 12 studies found that VR simulation is a valuable tool for aiding in surgical education of shoulder arthroscopy. Ten studies demonstrated that VR simulation improves skills in the operating room. Three studies revealed that individuals with more experience exhibit superior performance on these simulators compared to those with less experience. In the realm of athletic training, 10 studies showcased the potential of VR simulation to play a significant role in athletic performance and injury rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: VR simulation shows benefits in the operating room, is a valuable tool for surgical education resulting in improved skills, and can be used to enhance athletic performance and injury rehabilitation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding that VR simulators can improve surgical outcomes, surgical skill training, and athletic training and rehabilitation could facilitate development and adoption of this advanced technology.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing clinical outcomes of rotator cuff repair with and without patch augmentation. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials that directly compared outcomes between rotator cuff repair (RCR) with versus without patch augmentation. Patients were evaluated based on retear rate, histological outcomes, radiological outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (Constant score; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] score; University of California-Los Angeles shoulder scale; Simple Shoulder Test; EuroQol-visual analog scale; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score; and PENN shoulder score questionnaire). RESULTS: Six studies (1 level I, 5 level II) met inclusion criteria, including 188 patients undergoing RCR alone (Control) and 193 patients undergoing RCR with patch augmentation (Patch). Patient age ranged from 56.0 to 68.0 years. The mean follow-up time ranged from 14.0 to 68.4 months. The average body mass index ranged from 24.4 to 29.4, and the overall percentage of males ranged from 32.5% to 82.3%. Three studies found significantly decreased retear rates with patch augmentation. The retear rate ranged from 34.0% to 65.4% in the Control group and 9.1% to 52.9% in the Patch group. One study found a significant difference for the Constant score favoring the Patch group. Two studies found a significant difference for the ASES score favoring the Patch group. One study found significantly better results with patch augmentation in terms of repaired tendon thickness and footprint coverage, based on magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Patch augmentation of rotator cuff repairs may be associated with lower retear rates for large tears. There is limited evidence to suggest that patch augmentation is associated with improved patient-reported outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of level I and II studies.
Assuntos
Lesões do Manguito Rotador , Manguito Rotador , Humanos , Artroscopia/métodos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Manguito Rotador/cirurgia , Lesões do Manguito Rotador/cirurgia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review to compare clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy patients undergoing microfracture (MFx) versus other cartilage repair procedures for chondral lesions of the acetabulum. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify comparative studies that directly compared outcomes between MFx and other cartilage repair procedures for full-thickness chondral lesions of the acetabulum identified during hip arthroscopy. The search phrase used was: hip AND arthroscopy AND microfracture. Patients were evaluated based on reoperation rates and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Six studies (all Level III evidence) met inclusion criteria, including a total of 202 patients undergoing microfracture (group A) and 327 patients undergoing another cartilage repair procedure (group B). Mean patient age ranged from 35.0 to 45.0 years. Mean follow-up time ranged from 12.0 to 72.0 months. Significantly better patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were found in patients undergoing treatment with bone marrow aspirate concentrate, microfragmented adipose tissue concentrate, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, and a combination of autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis and bone marrow aspirate concentrate compared with MFx. No studies found significantly better postoperative PROs in group A. The reoperation rate ranged from 0% to 34.6% in group A and 0% to 15.9% in group B. Three of 5 studies reporting on reoperation rate found a significantly greater reoperation rate in group A, with no difference in the other 2 studies. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on MFx of acetabular chondral lesions is limited and heterogeneous. Based on the available data, MFx alone results in a greater or equivalent reoperation rate and inferior or equivalent PROs compared with other cartilage repair procedures for acetabular chondral lesions in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of level III studies.
Assuntos
Doenças das Cartilagens , Cartilagem Articular , Impacto Femoroacetabular , Fraturas de Estresse , Humanos , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Acetábulo/cirurgia , Impacto Femoroacetabular/cirurgia , Impacto Femoroacetabular/patologia , Cartilagem Articular/cirurgia , Cartilagem Articular/patologia , Doenças das Cartilagens/cirurgia , Fraturas de Estresse/patologia , Artroscopia , Resultado do Tratamento , Articulação do Quadril/cirurgiaRESUMO
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of clinical studies to directly compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with versus without suture tape (ST) augmentation. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify comparative studies directly comparing outcomes of ACLR with versus without ST augmentation with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The search terms used were anterior cruciate ligament suture tape. Patients were evaluated based on graft failure rates, return to sport (RTS), anteroposterior (AP) laxity, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: Five studies (all Level III) met inclusion criteria, including a total of 246 patients undergoing ACLR with ST augmentation (SA group) and 282 patients undergoing ACLR without augmentation (control group). Patient age ranged from 14.9 to 29.7 years. The mean follow-up time ranged from 24.0 to 48.6 months. The mean body mass index ranged from 25.3 to 26.3 kg/m2 and the overall percentage of males ranged from 43.4% to 69.0%. Overall, the graft failure rate ranged from 1.0% to 25.0% in the SA group and 8.0% to 20.0% in the control group. Among the studies that reported RTS rates, the rate ranged from 69.2% to 88.9% in the SA group and 51.5% to 87.5% in the control group. Among all PROs, 2 studies found a significant difference in the Tegner score favoring the SA group. Otherwise, no significant differences were found between groups in terms of PROs. No significant differences in AP laxity were found between groups within any particular study. There was heterogeneity between studies regarding surgical techniques, postoperative rehabilitation protocols, and reported PROs. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to suggest that patients undergoing ACLR with ST augmentation may experience favorable clinical outcomes compared with ACLR alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level III studies.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review to compare clinical outcomes, complications, and reoperation rates of patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure with screw vs suture-button fixation. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify clinical studies directly comparing screw vs suture-button fixation for the Latarjet procedure. The search terms used were shoulder screw suture button. Patients were evaluated based on reoperation rate, complication rate, recurrent instability, radiologic outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. Graft and screw position were assessed via computed tomography. RESULTS: Seven studies (1 Level II, 6 Level III) met inclusion criteria, with 845 patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure with screw fixation (screw group) and 279 patients with suture-button fixation (suture-button group). Mean patient age ranged from 21.2 to 29.6 years. Mean follow-up time ranged from 6.0 to 40.8 months. The recurrent instability rate ranged from 0% to 2.5% in the screw group and 0% to 8.3% in the suture-button group. The reoperation rate ranged from 0% to 7.7% in the screw group compared to 0% to 1.9% in the suture-button group. One study reported significantly lower visual analog scale pain scores in the suture-button group compared with the screw group (1.5 vs 1.2, P = .003). No other studies reported significant differences in any patient-reported outcomes. There was no significant difference in horizontal or vertical graft position, graft union rate, or complication rate between groups in any study. CONCLUSIONS: The Latarjet procedure with screw fixation may result in a lower risk of recurrent instability compared to suture-button fixation, although screw fixation may also have a higher reoperation rate due to hardware-related complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level II to III studies.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To systematically review randomized controlled trials to compare clinical outcomes of microfracture (MFx) versus third-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) for the treatment of focal chondral defects (FCDs) of the knee joint. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE to locate randomized controlled trials comparing minimum 2-year clinical outcomes of patients undergoing MFx versus third-generation ACI for FCDs of the knee joint. The search terms used were: "knee" AND "microfracture" AND "autologous chondrocyte" AND "randomized." Patients were evaluated based on treatment failure rates, magnetic resonance imaging, International Cartilage Repair Society scores, and patient-reported outcome scores (Lysholm, Tegner, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System, 12-item Short Form Health Survey Physical and Mental, and the EuroQol 5 Dimensions Visual Analog Scale score). RESULTS: Six studies (5 Level I, 1 Level II) met inclusion criteria, including a total of 238 patients undergoing MFx and 274 undergoing ACI. Two studies had an overlapping cohort of patients and therefore the study with longer follow-up was used in all analyses. The average follow-up among patients ranged from 2.0 years to 6.0 years. Average lesion size ranged from 1.8 cm2 to 5.0 cm2. Treatment failure ranged from 0% to 1.8% in the ACI group and 2.5% to 8.3% in the MFx group. In 4 studies, ACI patients demonstrated significantly greater improvement in multiple Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscores compared with MFx. In 2 studies, patients who received ACI demonstrated significantly greater improvement in the Tegner score compared to MFx, and 1 study showed significantly greater improvement in the Lysholm and ICRS scores for ACI compared with MFx. CONCLUSIONS: At short-term follow-up, third-generation ACI demonstrates a lower failure rate and greater improvement in patient-reported outcomes compared with MFx for FCDs of the knee joint. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, systematic review of Levels I-II studies.
Assuntos
Doenças das Cartilagens , Cartilagem Articular , Fraturas de Estresse , Traumatismos do Joelho , Osteoartrite , Cartilagem Articular/cirurgia , Condrócitos/transplante , Colágeno , Humanos , Traumatismos do Joelho/cirurgia , Articulação do Joelho/cirurgia , Transplante Autólogo/métodosRESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an emerging biological intervention for osteoarthritis (OA), yet the outcomes remain uncertain. The purpose of this study was to review current literature regarding the use of PRP for knee and hip OA. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent systematic reviews have found significant clinical improvements in outcomes after the administration of PRP compared to hyaluronic acid (HA) in patients with knee OA. One of these reviews included bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) as a comparison group and found no significant differences in outcomes between PRP and BMAC. Currently, the literature is lacking on whether leukocyte-rich or leukocyte-poor PRP is superior in patients with knee OA. The literature on PRP for hip OA has not provided consistent results as it has for the knee. Two recent systematic reviews evaluated RCTs for patients undergoing treatment with either PRP or HA for hip OA and found no significant differences in clinical outcomes between groups at final follow-up. Current literature regarding the association between OA grade and PRP efficacy has found varying results. The use of PRP injections in the treatment of knee OA appears to be favorable, resulting in clinically comparable or superior outcomes compared to other injection treatments. However, the clinical efficacy of PRP injections in hip OA is far less consistent. Evidence is lacking to suggest that the presence of leukocytes significantly influences clinical outcomes. Further randomized controlled trials on larger cohorts, with longer follow-up, and with comparable formulations are required before recommendations can be made regarding use of PRP for hip OA, the effect of leukocyte concentration, and clinical efficacy based on OA grade.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the use of concomitant acromioplasty during rotator cuff repair (RCR) improves clinical outcomes and whether the outcomes are affected by acromial type. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing clinical outcomes of RCR with and without acromioplasty, with a subanalysis of outcomes based on acromial type. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials that directly compared outcomes between RCR with versus without acromioplasty. A subanalysis was performed on the studies that provided outcomes based on acromial type. The search phrase used was rotator cuff repair (acromioplasty OR subacromial decompression) randomized. Patients were evaluated based on retear rate, reoperation rate, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: Application of inclusion criteria yielded 5 studies (2 studies were level 1, and 3 studies were level 2) including a total of 409 patients, with 211 patients undergoing RCR alone (group A) and 198 patients undergoing RCR with acromioplasty (group B). The mean patient age was 58.5 and 58.3 years in groups A and B, respectively. The mean follow-up time was 52.9 months, and the overall percentage of male patients was 54.1%. The rotator cuff tear size was 20.7 mm and 19.8 mm for groups A and B, respectively. No significant differences were found between groups for any of the PROs at final follow-up. Overall retear rates did not significantly differ between groups based on acromial type. Between 2 studies that measured reoperation rate, a significantly higher reoperation rate was found for the nonacromioplasty group (15%) versus the acromioplasty group (4.1%) (P = .031). One of these studies found that 5 of 9 patients (56%) with a type III acromion in the nonacromioplasty group underwent reoperation compared with 0 of 4 patients with a type III acromion in the acromioplasty group. CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that acromioplasty during RCR reduces the risk for later reoperation. This may be particularly true for patients with type III acromions, although further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to corroborate these data.
RESUMO
Purpose: To perform a systematic review of clinical studies evaluating the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify comparative studies of patients undergoing the PENG block before hip arthroscopy. The search phrase used was hip arthroscopy pericapsular nerve block. Patients were evaluated based on analgesic consumption, time to discharge from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and pain scores (Numeric Rating Scale and visual analog scale). The Modified Coleman Methodology Score was used to evaluate study methodology quality. Results: Five studies (2 Level I, 3 Level III) met inclusion criteria. The 5 studies included the following comparison groups: 0.9% normal saline injection, general anesthesia alone, and general anesthesia with intraoperative pericapsular bupivacaine injection. The 2 randomized controlled trials included in this review reported no significant difference between groups regarding opioid consumption. One of these did not find any statistically significant differences in their secondary outcomes either, including patient satisfaction with analgesia, opioid-related adverse events, or persistent opioid use at 1 week. However, the other 3 studies found significantly lower opioid consumption in patients receiving the PENG block versus the control group intraoperatively, in the PACU, and/or postoperatively. Four studies reported significantly lower pain levels in the PENG block group compared with the control groups, measured differently in each study: 24 hours postoperatively, initial pain score in the PACU, mean score in the PACU, and highest score in the PACU. None of the studies found significantly worse outcomes in the PENG block group compared to the comparison group. Conclusions: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials shows that patients undergoing hip arthroscopy who receive a PENG block do not consume fewer opioids for postoperative pain control than patients who do not receive the block. Level of Evidence: Level III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.
RESUMO
Orthopaedic surgery has become one of the most competitive specialties to match into among medical students applying to residency. The purpose of this study was to compare match rates to orthopaedic surgery residency programs among first-time vs. repeat applicants. Methods: Data were obtained from the National Resident Matching Program from 2018 to 2022. For each year, the total number of applicants to orthopaedic surgery residency programs was obtained, as well as the number of applicants who successfully matched into orthopaedics. The match rate was compared between first-time vs repeat applicants. A subanalysis was performed on allopathic graduates (MDs) and osteopathic graduates (DOs)/international medical graduates (IMGs). In addition, the match rate for first-time applicants and reapplicants was compared between MD and DO/IMG applicants. Results: Overall, there was a significantly higher match rate among first-time applicants (89.8%) vs. repeat applicants (22.5%, p < 0.0001). When substratified by MD and DO/IMG applicants, first-time applicants still matched at a significantly higher rate than reapplicants within each group (p < 0.0001 for each). Among first-time applicants, MDs (93.1%) matched at a significantly higher rate than DOs/IMGs (68.6%, p < 0.0001). Among reapplicants, DOs/IMGs (25.3%) matched at a significantly higher rate than MDs (20.1%, p < 0.01). Conclusion: First-time applicants to orthopaedic surgery residency programs have a significantly higher rate of matching compared with reapplicants, irrespective of degree. In recent years, first-time MD applicants have matched at a significantly higher rate than first-time DO/IMG applicants.
RESUMO
Background Context: Laminectomy is a common vertebral decompression procedure that has multiple potential adverse events which are not always reported in SRs. Purpose: To evaluate the completeness of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) on laminectomy. Study Design: Cross-sectional analysis. Methods: Eligible studies were SRs that evaluated laminectomy for any indication. MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched in May 2022 to locate studies for inclusion. Screening and data extraction on harms reporting and study characteristics were performed in duplicate. AMSTAR-2 was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included SRs. Corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated for SR pairs. Results: We included 26 SRs comprising 426 primary studies. Most SRs studied laminectomy for spinal stenosis, declared harms as a secondary outcome, and lacked or did not mention funding. Two SRs completely omitted harms, 9 had between 0% and 50.0% completion of harms items, and 15 had more than 50.1% completion. AMSTAR-2 graded 25 SRs (25/26, 96.2%) as 'critically low' and 1 SR (1/26, 3.8%) as 'low'. We found a statistically significant association between completeness of harms reporting and outcome specification. No other associations were statistically significant. Three SR pairs had CCAs >50% and were compared for unique and shared harms. Conclusions: The completeness of harms reporting in SRs was inadequate. Because SRs often serve as tools for constructing clinical practice guidelines and clinical decision making, improvements must be made to enhance and refine harms reporting.
RESUMO
Background: Some studies have suggested that running increases the risk of knee osteoarthritis (OA), while others believe it serves a protective function. Purpose: To perform an updated systematic review of the literature to determine the effects of running on the development of knee OA. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was performed by searching the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases to identify studies evaluating the effect of cumulative running on the development of knee OA or chondral damage based on imaging and/or patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The search terms used were "knee AND osteoarthritis AND (run OR running OR runner)." Patients were evaluated based on plain radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and PROs (presence of knee pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score). Results: Seventeen studies (6 level 2 studies, 9 level 3 studies, and 2 level 4 studies), with 7194 runners and 6947 nonrunners, met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up time was 55.8 months in the runner group and 99.7 months in the nonrunner group. The mean age was 56.2 years in the runner group and 61.6 years in the nonrunner group. The overall percentage of men was 58.5%. There was a significantly higher prevalence of knee pain in the nonrunner group (P < .0001). Although 1 study found a significantly higher prevalence of osteophytes in the tibiofemoral (TF) and patellofemoral (PF) joints within the runner group, multiple studies found no significant differences in the prevalence of radiographic knee OA (based on TF/PF joint-space narrowing or Kellgren-Lawrence grade) or cartilage thickness on MRI between runners and nonrunners (P > .05). One study found a significantly higher risk of knee OA progressing to total knee replacement among nonrunners (4.6% vs 2.6%; P = .014). Conclusion: In the short term, running is not associated with worsening PROs or radiological signs of knee OA and may be protective against generalized knee pain.
RESUMO
Purpose: To identify and evaluate techniques used for postless hip arthroscopy. Methods: A narrative review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify surgical technique articles or clinical studies describing techniques for the use of postless hip arthroscopy. Specific items sought for analysis included hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement including cam or pincer-type lesions, surgical time, traction time, traction force, bed Trendelenburg angle, intraoperative techniques, and postoperative outcomes, including complications. Exclusion criteria included any postless techniques used for open hip surgeries such as periacetabular osteotomy, sports hernia, peritrochanteric work, gluteus medius repair, ischiofemoral impingement, hamstring repair, or need for intraoperative conversion from postless to posted technique. Results: Ten studies (1 Level III, 3 Level IV, 6 Level V), published from 2007 to 2021, were analyzed (1,341 hips, 51.5% male, mean age ranged from 16.0 to 66.0 years). In 4 studies, Trendelenburg position with a foam pad (The Pink Pad; Xodus Medical, Inc.) was used at 5 to 20°. Six of 10 studies contained no clinical results. The average traction force and time ranged from 65.0 to 88 pounds and 31.0 to 73.5 minutes, respectively. The remaining studies used the yoga mat technique, the Tutankhamun technique, the beanbag technique, and the Hip Arthroscopy Post-less Procedure Impingement technique. There was only one incident of pudendal neurapraxia, which resolved spontaneously at 6 weeks without complication. Sufficient distraction was able to be obtained using postless traction in all cases. Conclusions: Postless hip arthroscopy may adequately be performed with a variety of techniques. Obtaining adequate traction and countertraction may be achieved through these postless methods. Clinical Relevance: Given the potential serious complications that may result from use of a perineal post, it is important for surgeons to be aware of postless techniques that may be used effectively for hip arthroscopy.
RESUMO
Background: The extent to which concomitant cartilage repair provides an improvement in clinical outcomes after osteotomy is unclear. Purpose: To compare studies reporting clinical outcomes after isolated osteotomy with or without cartilage repair for osteoarthritis (OA) or focal chondral defects (FCDs) of the knee joint. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. The search was done to identify comparative studies that directly compared outcomes between isolated osteotomy-high tibial osteotomy or distal femoral osteotomy-and osteotomy with concomitant cartilage repair for OA or FCDs of the knee joint. Patients were evaluated based on reoperation rate, magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue score, macroscopic International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation Society score, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: In total, 6 studies-level 2 evidence (n = 2);, level 3 evidence (n = 3);, and level 4 evidence (n = 1)-met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 228 patients undergoing osteotomy alone (group A) and 255 patients undergoing osteotomy with concomitant cartilage repair (group B). The mean patient age was 53.4 and 54.8 years, respectively, and the mean preoperative alignment was 6.6° and 6.7° of varus in groups A and B, respectively. The mean follow-up time was 71.5 months. All studies assessed medial compartment lesions with varus deformity. One study compared osteotomy alone for patients with medial compartment OA versus osteotomy with autologous chondrocyte implantation for patients with FCDs of the medial compartment. Three other studies included a heterogeneous cohort of patients with OA and FCDs in both groups. Only 1 study isolated its comparison to patients with medial compartment OA and 1 study isolated its comparison to patients with FCDs. Conclusion: There is limited evidence with substantial heterogeneity between studies on clinical outcomes after osteotomy alone versus osteotomy with cartilage repair for OA or FCDs of the knee joint. At this time, no conclusion can be made regarding the role of additional cartilage procedures in treating medial compartment OA or FCDs. Further studies are needed that isolate specific disease pathology and specific cartilage procedures.
RESUMO
Background: The extent to which concomitant osteotomy provides an improvement in clinical outcomes after cartilage repair procedures is unclear. Purpose: To review the existing literature to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing cartilage repair of the tibiofemoral joint with versus without concomitant osteotomy. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies that directly compared outcomes between cartilage repair of the tibiofemoral joint alone (group A) versus cartilage repair with concomitant osteotomy (high tibial osteotomy [HTO] or distal femoral osteotomy [DFO]) (group B). Studies on cartilage repair of the patellofemoral joint were excluded. The search terms used were as follows: osteotomy AND knee AND ("autologous chondrocyte" OR "osteochondral autograft" OR "osteochondral allograft" OR microfracture). Outcomes in groups A and B were compared based on reoperation rate, complication rate, procedure payments, and patient-reported outcomes (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], visual analog scale [VAS] for pain, satisfaction, and WOMAC). Results: Included in the review were 5 studies (1 level 2 study, 2 level 3 studies, 2 level 4 studies) with 1747 patients in group A and 520 patients in group B. The mean patient ages were 34.7 and 37.5 years in groups A and B, respectively, and the mean lesion sizes were 4.0 and 4.5 cm2, respectively. The mean follow-up time was 44.6 months. The most common lesion location was the medial femoral condyle (n = 999). Preoperative alignment averaged 1.8° and 5.5° of varus in groups A and B, respectively. One study found significant differences between groups in KOOS, VAS, and satisfaction, favoring group B. The reoperation rates were 47.4% and 17.3% in groups A and B, respectively (P < .0001). Conclusion: Patients undergoing cartilage repair of the tibiofemoral joint with concomitant osteotomy might be expected to experience greater improvement in clinical outcomes with a lower reoperation rate compared with those undergoing cartilage repair alone. Surgeons preparing for cartilage procedures of the knee joint should pay particular attention to preoperative malalignment of the lower extremity to optimize outcomes.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Intraoperative motor and somatosensory evoked potentials have been applied to monitor spinal cord ischemia during repair. However, their predictive values remain controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of motor evoked potentials and somatosensory evoked potentials on spinal cord ischemia during open distal aortic repair. METHODS: Our group began routine use of both somatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials at the end of 2004. This study used a historical cohort design, using risk factor and outcome data from our department's prospective registry. Univariate and multivariable statistics for risk-adjusted effects of motor evoked potentials and somatosensory evoked potentials on neurologic outcome and model discrimination were assessed with receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Both somatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials were measured in 822 patients undergoing open distal aortic repair between December 2004 and December 2019. Both motor evoked potentials and somatosensory evoked potentials were intact for the duration of surgery in 348 patients (42%). Isolated motor evoked potential loss was observed in 283 patients (34%), isolated somatosensory evoked potential loss was observed in 18 patients (3%), and both motor evoked potential and somatosensory evoked potential loss were observed in 173 patients (21%). No spinal cord ischemia occurred in the 18 cases with isolated somatosensory evoked potential loss. When both signals were lost, signal loss happened in the order of motor evoked potentials and then somatosensory evoked potentials. Immediate spinal cord ischemia occurred in none of those without signal loss, 4 of 283 (1%) with isolated motor evoked potential loss, and 15 of 173 (9%) with motor evoked potential plus somatosensory evoked potential loss. Delayed spinal cord ischemia occurred in 12 of 348 patients (3%) with intact evoked potentials, 24 of 283 patients (8%) with isolated motor evoked potentials loss, and 27 of 173 patients (15%) with motor evoked potentials + somatosensory evoked potentials loss (P < .001). Motor evoked potentials and somatosensory evoked potentials loss were each independently associated with spinal cord ischemia. For immediate spinal cord ischemia, no return of motor evoked potential signals at the conclusion of the surgery had the highest odds ratio of 15.87, with a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.936, whereas motor evoked potential loss had the highest odds ratio of 3.72 with an area under the curve of 0.638 for delayed spinal cord ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: Somatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials are both important monitoring measures to predict and prevent spinal cord ischemia during and after open distal aortic repairs. Intraoperative motor evoked potential loss is a risk for immediate and delayed spinal cord ischemia after open distal aortic repair, and somatosensory evoked potential loss further adds predictive value to the motor evoked potential.
Assuntos
Aneurisma da Aorta Torácica , Isquemia do Cordão Espinal , Humanos , Medula Espinal , Potenciais Somatossensoriais Evocados/fisiologia , Potencial Evocado Motor , Isquemia do Cordão Espinal/diagnóstico , Isquemia do Cordão Espinal/etiologia , Isquemia do Cordão Espinal/prevenção & controle , Aorta Torácica/cirurgia , Aneurisma da Aorta Torácica/cirurgiaRESUMO
Purpose: To compare the time to publication of accepted manuscripts and content in orthopaedic sports medicine journals during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A convenience sample of articles published in January, May, and September during the years 2019-2021 was taken from Arthroscopy, American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA). The duration between the aspects of the article publication process was compared between journals and years. Results: Overall, 826 journal articles were included. Arthroscopy demonstrated no significant differences in the time from manuscript submission to journal publication from 2019 to 2021, a significant decrease in time from acceptance to e-Pub (140 vs 74 vs 16 days; P < .001), but an increase from e-Pub to journal publication (23 vs 74 vs 130 days; P < .001). In AJSM, there was an overall increase in time from submission to journal publication significant between 2019 and 2021 (P = .05) and 2020 and 2021 (P = .001). KSSTA demonstrated the longest timelines in 2020. There was a trend toward a greater number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Conclusion: Changes in various aspects of the time to publication and journal content occurred in orthopaedic sports medicine journals in the years surrounding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Although it is not possible to know whether these delays are caused by journal or author-related factors, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the possible delay in time to publication and consider online and e-publication resources for the most current evidence-based medicine, while journals may take this information into account to consider ways of improving the publication process and when determining journal content. Clinical Relevance: It is important to understand the impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on the publications which orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons rely on for clinical knowledge and the practice of evidence-based medicine.
RESUMO
Background: The use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) has gained recent interest in the orthopaedics community. Purpose: To review the literature to evaluate the efficacy of umbilical cord-derived MSCs in the treatment of OA of the knee joint. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases to identify studies with evidence levels from 1 to 4 that evaluated the clinical efficacy of human umbilical cord-derived MSC (hUC-MSC) injections for knee OA. The search phrase used was "umbilical cord knee osteoarthritis." In the studies reviewed, patients were assessed based on the macroscopic International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation Society (ICRS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. Results: A total of 7 studies met inclusion criteria, including 385 patients undergoing injection of hUC-MSCs (mean age, 59.7 years). The mean follow-up was 23.4 months. Weighted averages of the WOMAC, macroscopic ICRS, subjective IKDC, and VAS scores all showed improvement from before to after treatment. No severe adverse reactions were recorded. Conclusion: Patients undergoing treatment of knee OA with hUC-MSCs might be expected to experience improvements in clinical outcomes. Additional high-quality randomized studies are needed to better determine the efficacy of hUC-MSC for the treatment of knee OA.