Impact of Therapeutic Interventions on Pain Intensity and Endogenous Pain Modulation in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of therapeutic interventions on pain analgesia and endogenous pain modulation in knee osteoarthritis (KOA). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched for KOA randomized clinical trials and observational studies with data on therapeutic interventions comparing pain intensity, temporal summation (TS), and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) scores relative to control. These data were pooled as Hedge's g. To study the relationship between pain intensity and TS/CPM, we performed metaregression with 10,000 Monte-Carlo permutations. RESULTS: We reviewed 11 studies (559 participants). On studying all the interventions together, we found no significant changes in pain modulation, TS, or CPM. Our findings show that this lack of difference is likely because surgical and nonsurgical interventions resulted in contrary effects. Metaregression significantly correlated pain reduction with normalization of TS and CPM. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate an association between pain reduction and TS/CPM normalization. Though we cannot directly compare these interventions, the results allow us to draw hypotheses on potential practice schemas. Recovering defective endogenous pain modulation mechanisms may help establish long-term analgesia. However, to validate these paradigms as robust clinical biomarkers, further investigation into their mechanisms would be necessary. The registration number for this review is CRD42017072066.

A Lateral Extra-articular Procedure Reduces the Failure Rate of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery Without Increasing Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lateral extra-articular procedures are becoming increasingly popular in association with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, especially in patients with persistent rotatory instability and in a high-risk population. However, few studies have investigated the outcomes of the lateral extra-articular procedure as an associated procedure in an ACL revision (R-ACLR) setting and its benefit with respect to isolated intra-articular reconstruction. HYPOTHESIS: Lateral extra-articular procedures reduce the failure rate of revision ACL reconstruction (R-ACLR). PURPOSE: To compare subjective outcomes, knee stability, and failure and complication rates between patients who underwent ACL revision with and without an associated lateral extra-articular procedure. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and OVID databases was performed on September 2022 in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Eligible studies were trials directly comparing patients who had isolated ACL revision with patients who had ACL revision associated with lateral extra-articular procedures at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. A meta-analysis was performed, and bias and the quality of the evidence were rated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Eight studies were included: a total of 334 patients were treated with isolated revision (isolated (R-ACLR)) and 342 treated with combined revision and a lateral extra-articular procedure (combined (R-ACLR)). For the failure rate, the meta-analysis showed a significantly decreased relative risk reduction of 54% (P = .004) in patients with combined (R-ACLR) with respect to isolated R-ACL, whereas no difference in complication rate was observed. The combined (R-ACLR) group demonstrated a decreased risk ratio of 50% (P = .002) for having a positive pivot-shift test result and a relative risk reduction of 68% (P = .003) for having a grade 2-3 pivot shift when compared with the isolated (R-ACLR) group. Finally, no significant differences were observed among the lateral extra-articular procedures. CONCLUSION: The addition of a lateral extra-articular procedure to revision ACL significantly reduced the failure rate and postoperative pivot shift without increasing the complication rate. Anterolateral ligament reconstruction and a lateral extra-articular procedure with iliotibial band were effective in improving the outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction. Further high-level studies could help to clarify which subgroup of patients could particularly benefit from an anterolateral procedure in the context of ACL revision.

Does non-invasive brain stimulation modify hand dexterity? Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Dexterity is described as coordinated hand and finger movement for precision tasks. It is essential for day-to-day activities like computer use, writing or buttoning a shirt. Integrity of brain motor networks is crucial to properly execute these fine hand tasks. When these networks are damaged, interventions to enhance recovery are frequently accompanied by unwanted side effects or limited in their effect. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) are postulated to target affected motor areas and improve hand motor function with few side effects. However, the results across studies vary, and the current literature does not allow us to draw clear conclusions on the use of NIBS to promote hand function recovery. Therefore, we developed a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of different NIBS technologies on dexterity in diverse populations. This study will potentially help future evidence-based research and guidelines that use these NIBS technologies for recovering hand dexterity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol will compare the effects of active versus sham NIBS on precise hand activity. Records will be obtained by searching relevant databases. Included articles will be randomised clinical trials in adults, testing the therapeutic effects of NIBS on continuous dexterity data. Records will be studied for risk of bias. Narrative and quantitative synthesis will be done. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No private health information is included; the study is not interventional. Ethical approval is not required. The results will be reported in a peer-review journal. REGISTRATION DETAILS: PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews registration number: CRD42016043809.