Rehabilitation for ankle fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: Ankle fracture is one of the most common lower limb fractures. Whilst immobilisation of the ankle can support and protect the fracture site during early healing, this also increases the risk of ankle weakness, stiffness, and residual pain. Rehabilitation aims to address the after-effects of this injury, to improve ankle function and quality of life. Approaches are wide-ranging and include strategies to improve ankle joint movement, muscle strength, or both. This is an update of a Cochrane review last published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of rehabilitation interventions following surgical or non-surgical management of ankle fractures in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two clinical trials registers in May 2022, and conducted additional searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in March 2023. We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing any rehabilitation intervention delivered to adults with ankle fracture. Interventions could have been given during or after the initial fracture management period (typically the first six weeks after injury), which may or may not have included surgical fixation. We excluded participants with multi-trauma, pathological fracture, or with established complications secondary to ankle fracture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for five outcomes: activity limitation (ankle function), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), participant satisfaction with treatment, pain, and adverse events (we focused on re-operation, defined as unplanned return to theatre). We report the findings up to six months after injury. MAIN RESULTS: We included 53 studies (45 RCTs, 8 quasi-RCTs) with 4489 adults with ankle fracture. In most studies, orthopaedic management included surgical fixation but was non-surgical in five studies, and either surgical or non-surgical in six studies. Here, we summarise the findings for three common rehabilitation comparisons; these included the most data and were the most clinically relevant. Because of different intervention approaches, we sometimes included a study in more than one comparison. Data for other less common comparisons were also available but often included few participants and were imprecise. All studies were unavoidably at high risk of performance and detection bias. We downgraded the certainty of all evidence for this reason. We also downgraded for imprecision and when we noted inconsistencies between studies that precluded meta-analysis of data. Early (within 3 weeks of surgery) versus delayed weight-bearing (12 studies, 1403 participants) Early weight-bearing probably leads to better ankle function (mean difference (MD) 3.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 5.78; 5 studies, 890 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however, this does not include a clinically meaningful difference. Early weight-bearing may offer little or no difference to HRQoL compared to delayed weight-bearing (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.30; 5 studies, 739 participants; low-certainty evidence); when translated to the EQ-5D scale (a commonly-used HRQoL questionnaire), any small difference was not clinically important. We were unsure whether there were any differences in participant satisfaction or pain because these outcomes had very low-certainty evidence. For adverse events, there may be little or no difference in re-operation (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.68; 7 studies, 1007 participants; low-certainty evidence). Removable versus non-removable ankle support (25 studies, 2206 participants) Following surgery, using a removable ankle support may lead to better ankle function (MD 6.39, 95% CI 1.69 to 11.09; 6 studies, 677 participants; low-certainty evidence). This effect included both a clinically important and unimportant difference. There is probably an improvement in HRQoL with a removable ankle support, although this difference included both a clinically important and unimportant difference when translated to the EQ-5D scale (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.50; 3 studies, 477 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported participant satisfaction. We were unsure of the effects on pain because of very low-certainty evidence (1 study, 29 participants). There may be little or no difference in re-operations (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.71; 6 studies, 624 participants; low-certainty evidence). Following non-surgical management, there may be little or no difference between removable and non-removable ankle supports in ankle function (MD 1.08, 95% CI -3.18 to 5.34; 3 studies, 399 participants), and HRQoL (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.15; 3 studies, 397 participants); low-certainty evidence. No studies reported participant satisfaction. We were unsure of the effects on pain (2 studies, 167 participants), or re-operation because of very low-certainty evidence (1 study, 305 participants). Physical therapy interventions versus usual care or other physical therapy interventions (9 studies, 857 participants) Types of interventions included the use of active controlled motion, a spring-loaded ankle trainer, an antigravity treadmill, and variations of enhanced physiotherapy (e.g. additional stretching, joint mobilisation, neuromuscular exercises), delivered during or after the initial fracture management period. We were unable to pool data because of the differences in the design of interventions and their usual care comparators. Studies often included very few participants. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes in this comparison was very low, and therefore we were unsure of the effectiveness of these therapies. No studies in this comparison reported re-operation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Early weight-bearing may improve outcomes in the first six months after surgery for ankle fracture, but the difference is likely to be small and may not always be clinically important. A removable ankle support may also provide a better outcome, but again, the difference may not always be clinically important. It is likely that neither approach increases the re-operation risk. We assume that the findings for these comparisons are applicable to people with closed ankle fractures, and that satisfactory fracture stabilisation had been achieved with surgery. For people who have non-surgical treatment, there is no evidence that either a removable or non-removable ankle support may be superior. We were uncertain whether any physical therapy interventions were more effective than usual care or other physical therapy interventions. We encourage investigators of future studies on rehabilitation interventions for ankle fracture to use a core outcome set.

Diagnostic impacts on management of soft tissue injuries associated with tibial plateau fractures: A narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Currently there is no consensus on the need for investigating knee ligamentous and meniscal injuries in a patient with a tibial plateau fracture. Consequently, many soft tissue injuries are likely undiagnosed and therefore untreated. The impact this has on long term knee outcomes is not well defined. We aimed to identify the impacts of various diagnostic methods on the management of meniscal injuries associated with tibial plateau fractures and evaluate the clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review using Pubmed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane following Cochrane guidelines. We included studies that operatively managed tibial plateau fractures and soft tissue injuries, which were diagnosed with either preoperative MRI, intra-operative arthroscopy or arthrotomy. RESULTS: 18 articles with 884 people, with a mean age of 46.4 years were included. Soft tissue injuries were detected on MRI (32-73%) and arthroscopy (12-70%), of which the most common were lateral meniscal injuries (7-64% of tibial plateau fractures). When identified by arthroscopy and arthrotomy, these injuries were almost always treated, either by repair or debridement. The clinical outcomes of these patients were poorly reported, with a heterogenous use of patient reported outcome measures, and follow up time points. There were no randomised trials or control groups for comparative analysis, however operative treatment yielded good to excellent outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is a high incidence of concomitant soft tissue injuries with tibial plateau fractures, particularly lateral meniscal injuries. There are 2 main approaches to meniscal injuries: surgeons who don't investigate, don't treat, whilst surgeons who do investigate often do surgically treat. Although studies that treated these injuries achieved good to excellent results, the currently available evidence doesn't confirm treatment superiority. As there is plausibility for better outcomes, randomised studies are needed to further investigate this clinical question.

Ultrasound and shockwave therapy for acute fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: The morbidity and socioeconomic costs of fractures are considerable. The length of time to healing is an important factor in determining a person's recovery after a fracture. Ultrasound may have a therapeutic role in reducing the time to union after fracture by stimulating osteoblasts and other bone-forming proteins. This is an update of a review previously published in February 2014.   OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of low-intensity ultrasound (LIPUS), high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFUS) and extracorporeal shockwave therapies (ECSW) as part of the treatment of acute fractures in adults.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase (1980 to March 2022), Orthopaedic Proceedings, trial registers and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs including participants over 18 years of age with acute fractures (complete or stress fractures) treated with either LIPUS, HIFUS or ECSW versus a control or placebo-control. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We collected data for the following critical outcomes: participant-reported quality of life, quantitative functional improvement, time to return to normal activities, time to fracture union, pain, delayed or non-union of fracture. We also collected data for treatment-related adverse events. We collected data in the short term (up to three months after surgery) and in the medium term (later than three months after surgery).   MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies, involving 1543 fractures in 1517 participants; two studies were quasi-RCTs. Twenty studies tested LIPUS and one trial tested ECSW; no studies tested HIFUS. Four studies did not report any of the critical outcomes. All studies had unclear or high risk of bias in at least one domain. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded for imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency. LIPUS versus control (20 studies, 1459 participants) We found very low-certainty evidence for the effect of LIPUS on Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured by SF-36 at up to one year after surgery for lower limb fractures (mean difference (MD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.85 to 3.97, favours LIPUS; 3 studies, 393 participants). This result was compatible with a clinically important difference of 3 units with both LIPUS or control. There may be little to no difference in time to return to work after people had complete fractures of the upper or lower limbs (MD 1.96 days, 95% CI -2.13 to 6.04, favours control; 2 studies, 370 participants; low-certainty evidence).  There is probably little or no difference in delayed union or non-union up to 12 months after surgery (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.09, favours control; 7 studies, 746 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Although data for delayed and non-union included both upper and lower limbs, we noted that there were no incidences of delayed or non-union in upper limb fractures. We did not pool data for time to fracture union (11 studies, 887 participants; very low-certainty evidence) because of substantial statistical heterogeneity which we could not explain. In upper limb fractures, MDs ranged from 0.32 to 40 fewer days to fracture union with LIPUS. In lower limb fractures, MDs ranged from 88 fewer days to 30 more days to fracture union. We also did not pool data for pain experienced at one month after surgery in people with upper limb fractures (2 studies, 148 participants; very low-certainty evidence) because of substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity. Using a 10-point visual analogue scale, one study reported less pain with LIPUS (MD -1.7, 95% CI -3.03 to -0.37; 47 participants), and the effect was less precise in the other study (MD -0.4, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.53; 101 participants). We found little or no difference in skin irritation (a possible treatment-related adverse event) between groups but judged the certainty of the evidence from this small study to be very low (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.65; 1 study, 101 participants). No studies reported data for functional recovery. Data for treatment adherence were inconsistently reported across studies, but was generally described to be good. Data for costs were reported for one study, with higher direct costs, as well as combined direct and indirect costs, for LIPUS use. ECSW versus control (1 study, 56 participants) We are uncertain whether ECSW reduces pain at 12 months after surgery in fractures of the lower limb (MD -0.62, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.27, favours ECSW); the difference between pain scores was unlikely to be clinically important, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. We are also uncertain of the effect of ECSW on delayed or non-union at 12 months because the certainty of this evidence is very low (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.01; 1 study, 57 participants). There were no treatment-related adverse events. This study reported no data for HRQoL, functional recovery, time to return to normal activities, or time to fracture union. In addition, no data were available for adherence or cost. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were uncertain of the effectiveness of ultrasound and shock wave therapy for acute fractures in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), for which few studies reported data. It is probable that LIPUS makes little or no difference to delayed union or non-union. Future trials should be double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials recording validated PROMs and following up all trial participants. Whilst time to union is difficult to measure, the proportion of participants achieving clinical and radiographic union at each follow-up point should be ascertained, alongside adherence with the study protocol and cost of treatment in order to better inform clinical practice.

Factors associated with humeral shaft nonunion.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim was to identify patient and injury factors independently associated with humeral diaphyseal fracture nonunion after nonoperative management. The secondary aim was to determine the effect of management (operative/nonoperative) on nonunion. METHODS: From 2008-2017, a total of 734 humeral shaft fractures (732 consecutive skeletally mature patients) were retrospectively identified from a trauma database. Follow-up was available for 663 fractures (662 patients, 90%) that formed the study cohort. Patient and injury characteristics were recorded. There were 523 patients (79%) managed nonoperatively and 139 (21%) managed operatively. Outcome (union/nonunion) was determined from medical records and radiographs. RESULTS: The median age at injury was 57 (range 16-96) years and 54% (n = 359/662) were female. Median follow-up was 5 (1.2-74) months. Nonunion occurred in 22.7% (n = 119/524) of nonoperatively managed injuries. Multivariate analysis demonstrated preinjury nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; odds ratio [OR] 20.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.12-199.48; P = .009) and glenohumeral arthritis (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.03-5.77; P = .043) were independently associated with an increased risk of nonunion. Operative fixation was independently associated with a lower risk of nonunion (2.9%, n = 4/139) compared with nonoperative management (OR for nonoperative/operative management 9.91, 95% CI 3.25-30.23; P < .001). Based on these findings, 5 patients would need to undergo primary operative fixation in order to avoid 1 nonunion. CONCLUSIONS: Preinjury NSAIDs and glenohumeral arthritis were independently associated with nonunion following nonoperative management of a humeral diaphyseal fracture. Operative fixation was the independent factor most strongly associated with a lower risk of nonunion. Targeting early operative fixation to at-risk patients may reduce the rate of nonunion and the morbidity associated with delayed definitive management.

The results of meniscal allograft transplantation surgery: what is success?

BACKGROUND: Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) may improve symptoms and function, and may limit premature knee degeneration in patients with symptomatic meniscal loss. The aim of this retrospective study was to examine patient outcomes after MAT and to explore the different potential definitions of 'success' and 'failure'. METHODS: Sixty patients who underwent MAT between 2008 and 2014, aged 18-50 were identified. Six validated outcome measures for knee pathologies, patient satisfaction and return to sport were incorporated into a questionnaire. Surgical failure (removal of most/all the graft, revision MAT or conversion to arthroplasty), clinical failure (Lysholm < 65), complication rates (surgical failure plus repeat arthroscopy for secondary allograft tears) and whether patients would have the procedure again were recorded. Statistics analysis included descriptive statistics, with patient-reported outcome measures reported as median and range. A binomial logistic regression was performed to assess factors contributing to failure. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (72%) responded, mean age 35.6 (±7.5). 72% required concomitant procedures, and 44% had Outerbridge III or IV chondral damage. The complication rate was 21% (9). At mean follow-up of 3.4 (±1.6) years, 9% (4) were surgical failures and 21% (9) were clinical failures. Half of those patients considered a failure stated they would undergo MAT again. In the 74% (32) reporting they would undergo MAT again, median KOOS, IKDC and Lysholm scores were 82.1, 62.1 and 88, compared to 62.2, 48.5 and 64 in patients who said they would not. None of the risk factors significantly contributed to surgical or clinical failure, although female gender and number of concomitant procedures were nearly significant. Following MAT, 40% were dissatisfied with type/level of sport achieved, but only 14% would not consider MAT again. CONCLUSIONS: None of the risk factors examined were linked to surgical or clinical failure. Whilst less favourable outcomes are seen with Outerbridge Grade IV, these patients should not be excluded from potential MAT. Inability to return to sport is not associated with failure since 73% of these patients would undergo MAT again. The disparity between 'clinical failure' and 'surgical failure' outcomes means these terms may need re-defining using a specific/bespoke MAT scoring system.