RESUMO
PURPOSE: To systematically review studies comparing outcomes of allograft versus autograft for hip labral reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic review following guidelines established by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) was performed in 3 databases using the terms "labrum," "hip," "acetabulum," "reconstruction," "augmentation," "allograft," and "autograft." Data on study characteristics, patient demographic characteristics, follow-up time, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), rates of revision surgery, and rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were collected. RESULTS: Three studies were included, with Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) scores ranging from 17 to 23. Among 92 patients receiving allografts, the mean ages ranged from 30.6 to 34.8 years; mean follow-up times, from 34.6 to 66.1 months; revision rates, from 0% to 23.6%; and conversion-to-THA rates, from 0% to 20%. Among 185 patients receiving autografts, the mean ages ranged from 34.6 to 35.9 years; mean follow-up times, from 32.7 to 80.8 months; revision rates, from 0% to 7.3%; and conversion-to-THA rates, from 0% to 6.7%. One study reported significantly higher revision rates in the allograft group. All studies reported no statistically significant differences in postoperative PROs, and all postoperative PROs significantly improved compared with preoperative PROs. Rates of achievement of the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state, reported by 1 study, were statistically similar between the 2 groups and ranged from 55.6% to 100% for the allograft group and from 53.8% to 84.6% for the autograft group. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between allograft and autograft patients in terms of postoperative PROs; however, all PRO measures were slightly higher in allograft patients. Both revision and conversion-to-THA rates were higher in allograft patients in 2 studies, with the level of significance being reached in terms of revision in 1 study. The third study reported zero revisions and conversions to THA in allograft and autograft patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To systematically review clinical and functional outcomes of endoscopic repairs of hip abductor tendon tears. METHODS: A search following guidelines established by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases using variations of the terms "endoscopy," "gluteus medius," "hip abductor," "outcome," "success," and "failure." Data for patient demographics, tear severity and location, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), clinical benefit, and rates of retears and revision surgery were collected and tabulated. Forest plots depicting preoperative versus postoperative PROs were generated. Quality assessment was performed using the modified Coleman Methodology Score. RESULTS: In total, 13 studies, 3 Level III and 10 Level IV, were included in this review, with a total of 272 patients whose ages ranged from 46.0 to 66.9 years and follow-up times from 16.4 to 46.7 months. Most tears were isolated to the gluteus medius, with the number of partial- versus full-thickness tears being similar. Trendelenburg gait, reported by 4 studies, persisted in 0% to 13.6% of patients after repair. Of 9 studies reporting both preoperative and postoperative PROs at latest follow-up, 8 reported significant improvements in all PROs (P < .05). In 5 studies, rates of achieving minimal clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptomatic state ranged from 50.0% to 93.3% and 40.7% to 75.0%, respectively. Surgical complication rates were 0% in 11 studies and 4.3% and 18.2% in 2 studies. Retear rates were 0% in 10 studies and ranged from 6.7% to 33.3% in 3 studies. Rates of revision due to retear, reported by 12 studies, were 0% in 8 studies and ranged from 2.2% to 13.0% in 4studies. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic repairs of both partial- and full-thickness hip abductor tendon tears have good-to-excellent PROs and low complication, retear, and revision rates. However, rates of minimal clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptomatic state achievement rates are highly variable and less than favorable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, a systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Stiffness following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is often treated with manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). However, there is debate regarding the timing of MUA, with many recommending against MUA beyond 3 months after TKA. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the functional and clinical outcomes of early versus delayed MUA for stiffness following TKA. METHODS: A search following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines was performed in the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases in November 2023. Data regarding study characteristics, demographics, knee flexion and extension, patient-reported outcomes, complications, and revisions were collected. A quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies. Included were 14 studies analyzing 13,445 knees, 72.1% of which underwent early MUA and 27.8% of which underwent delayed MUA. Of the 14 studies, 10 defined early MUA as being performed within 3 months of the index TKA. RESULTS: Pre-MUA and post-MUA knee flexion for the early/delayed groups was 71.3°/77.9° and 103.0°/96.1°, respectively. Upon meta-analysis, pre-MUA knee flexion was significantly higher in the delayed group (P = .003), whereas post-MUA flexion was similar in both groups (P = .36). The mean gain in knee flexion for the early and delayed groups was 32.0°/19.2°. The surgical complication and revision TKA rates for the early and delayed groups were 4.9%/10.3% and 5%/9%, respectively. A meta-analysis found the risk of surgical or medical complications and revision TKA to be significantly higher in the delayed MUA group (P < .00001 and = .002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although post-MUA knee flexion was similar in patients undergoing early and delayed MUA following TKA, the mean gain in flexion for early patients was nearly double that of delayed patients. Delayed patients also had significantly higher risks of surgical or medical complications and revision TKA following MUA.
RESUMO
Recent studies have shown that low preoperative resilience may lead to inferior outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate whether preoperative patient resilience is associated with outcome measures, including patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) and sleep quality, following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. To perform the review, a literature search was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the PubMed and Embase databases to gather studies related to the influence of preoperative resilience on postoperative outcomes of rotator cuff repair. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS). Seven studies with 584 patients were included. Of 36 total reported postoperative outcomes, including PROMs and sleep quality, 14 had a significant positive correlation with higher preoperative resilience. One study reported that higher resilience was significantly correlated with worse sleep quality at a two-week follow-up but not at further follow-ups of up to 24 weeks. Significant differences in outcomes between patients with varying levels of resilience were assessed in five studies, all of which found that patients with higher resilience had significantly better outcomes or no significant differences in outcomes between patients with varying levels of preoperative resilience. In no study was it reported that patients with low resilience had better outcomes. Overall, approximately half of all reported postoperative outcome data was found to be significantly associated with preoperative resilience. Therefore, clinicians should preemptively identify those with low resilience and administer psychological interventions to limit inferior outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.