The Role of Hyaluronic Acid for Soft Tissue Indications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

CONTEXT: Soft tissue injuries are often treated with injectables such as corticosteroids and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) to reduce inflammation and promote healing. There is increasing evidence examining the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) for the management of soft tissue injuries. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the treatment effect and role of HA for available soft tissue indications. DATA SOURCES: A search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from the inception date of each database through February 24, 2021, was conducted for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the use of HA for soft tissue indications. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility and extracted data from included studies for analysis. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies and pooled outcomes using a fixed-effects model. Outcomes (ie, function and pain relief) were categorized to short-term (<6 weeks, 6-12 weeks) and mid-term (>12 weeks) data. We present effect estimates as mean differences (MDs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) and present the estimate of effect of HA for available indications in relation to available comparators. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis of RCTs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1. RESULTS: Of the 6930 articles screened, 19 RCTs (n = 1629 patients) were eligible and included in this review. HA was evaluated across a variety of soft tissue indications including rotator cuff disease, elbow pain, ankle sprains, Achilles tendinopathy, patellar tendinopathy, and trigger finger. Of the 19 RCTs, 11 were placebo-controlled and 9 used active comparators (PRP, cortisone, prolotherapy, or extracorporeal shockwave therapy). The pooled treatment effect of HA across most soft indications against placebo and active comparators demonstrated benefit in short-term pain <6 weeks (MD visual analogue scale [VAS] 2.48, 95% CI 2.31-2.65) and 6 to 12 weeks (MD VAS 2.03, 95% CI 1.86-2.20). Mid-term pain relief also favored HA over comparators across indications >12 weeks from administration (MD VAS 3.57, 95% CI 3.35-3.78). High heterogeneity was present with rotator cuff (10 trials, I2 = 94%), and elbow tendinopathy (2 trials, I2 = 99%). We identified uncertain benefit for trigger finger (2 trials, I2 = 67%). Heterogeneity for ankle sprains, patellar tendinopathy and Achilles tendinopathy could not be assessed as they only had 1 trial each. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis support HA's efficacy in the treatment of a variety of soft tissue indications. Understanding the relative effects of HA to other injectable modalities requires additional, large trials.

Pharmacological Treatment in the Management of Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis.

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GH-OA) is a common cause of shoulder pain and is characterized by articular cartilage thinning, glenoid bone loss and deformity, osteophytosis, and other associated changes. The prevalence is estimated to be between 85 and 94% in men and women over the age of 80 years. A diagnosis of GH-OA is established based on clinical history, physical examination, and radiographic assessments. Non-pharmacological treatment options may serve as adjuvants to other therapies and should be incorporated for a more holistic approach to management. Pharmacological treatments include oral agents such as acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, corticosteroids and antidepressants. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) UK guidelines recommend NSAIDS as the first-line drugs for OA; topical forms of some of these agents can also be used. However, clinical evidence is largely lacking for its use in GH-OA, although patients with other types of OA, especially the knee and hip, are using these products in efforts to relieve joint pain. Intra-articular injections such as platelet-rich plasma, cortisone, and hyaluronic acid are usually used to control symptoms in moderate to advanced arthritis or in non-surgical candidates. Other non-surgical treatment options include suprascapular nerve block and radiofrequency ablation, and these options have been studied on different levels of evidence. Furthermore, all these treatments have their own indications, contraindications, and adverse effects profiles. Surgical treatment of GH-OA is reserved for patients who do not respond to conservative management or who suffer from debilitating symptoms that severely impair their quality of life.Level of Evidence IV, review article.

The efficacy of teriparatide on lumbar spine bone mineral density, vertebral fracture incidence and pain in post-menopausal osteoporotic patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Teriparatide has been increasingly utilized in the management of osteoporosis. The efficacy of low and high dose teriparatide on lumbar spine bone mineral density, vertebral fracture incidence and pain is unknown. We sought to determine the efficacy of teriparatide on these patient-important outcomes using a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluate teriparatide to any comparator for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. The Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were used by two independent reviewers to assess the strength and quality of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies (n = 6024) were included in this review, with 2855 patients receiving teriparatide and 3169 patients receiving placebo or control treatment. A teriparatide dose of 20 µg/day increased lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.34 standard deviation (SD) units higher (95% CI 0.19-0.48 SDs higher) in comparison to placebo. Relative to anti-resorptive agents, 20 µg/day of teriparatide had a range from 0.14 SD units to 0.96 SD units higher (95% CI, 0.08 SDs lower to 0.36 SDs higher, CI, 0.33-1.59 SDs higher, respectively). 20 µg/day teriparatide had a significant effect on pain severity to placebo or control (SMD 0.80, 95% CI, 1.16-0.43 SDs lower) and also decreased the incidence of vertebral fractures compared to placebo (relative risk 0.31, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.46). Arthralgia and extremity pain incidence were also calculated; there were 15 and 8 fewer events per 1000 patients with the use of 20 µg/day of teriparatide compared to placebo or control, respectively. CONCLUSION: High quality evidence supports the utilization of teriparatide 20 µg/day dose to significantly improve lumbar spine BMD and decrease incidence of vertebral fractures and pain severity relative to all comparators. 40 µg/day dose of teriparatide demonstrated significantly better results with prolonged treatment. This data is valuable for clinicians involved in the care of this growing demographic of patients. Further investigation on the safety and efficacy of teriparatide in higher doses for the long-term treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women should be conducted through high-quality clinical trials.

Randomized control trial of ultrasound-guided erector spinae block versus shoulder periarticular anesthetic infiltration for pain control after arthroscopic shoulder surgery: Study protocol clinical trial (SPIRIT compliant).

INTRODUCTION: Moderate to severe postoperative pain and associated opioid use may interfere with patients' well-being and course of recovery. Regional anesthetic techniques provide an opportunity for opioid sparing and improved patient outcomes. A new regional technique called the erector spinae plane (ESP) block has the potential to provide effective analgesia after shoulder arthroscopy with minimal risks and decreased opioid consumption. Our primary objective is to determine whether, in patients who undergo arthroscopic shoulder surgery, a preoperative ESP block reduces pain scores as compared to periarticular infiltration at the end of surgery. Additionally, we will also examine other factors such as opioid consumption, sensory block, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and persistent pain. METHODS: This is a 2-arm, single-center, parallel-design, double-blind randomized controlled trial of 60 patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Eligible patients will be recruited in the preoperative clinic. Using a computer-generated randomization, with a 1:1 allocation ratio, patients will be randomized to either the ESP or periarticular infiltration group. Patients will be followed in hospital in the postanesthesia care unit, at 24 hours, and at 1 month. The study with be analyzed as intention-to-treat. DISCUSSION: This study will inform an evidence-based choice in recommending ESP block for shoulder arthroscopy, as well as providing safety data. The merits of the study include its double dummy blinding to minimize observer bias, and its assessment of patient important outcomes, including pain scores, opioid consumption, and patient satisfaction. This study will also help provide an estimate of the incidence of side effects and complications of the ESP block. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03691922; Recruited Date of registration: October 2, 2018.

Efficacy of Electrical Stimulation for Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Spinal fusion is one of the most common procedures performed in spine surgery. As rates of spinal fusion continue to increase, rates of complications such as nonunions continue to increase as well. Current evidence supporting the use of electrical stimulation to promote fusion is inconclusive. This review aimed to determine if postoperative electrical stimulation is more efficacious than no stimulation or placebo in promoting radiographic fusion in patients undergoing spinal fusion. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL and MEDLINE from date of inception to current. Ongoing clinical trials were also identified and reference lists of included studies were manually searched for relevant articles. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Trialists were contacted for any missing or incomplete data. Of 1184 articles screened, 7 studies were eligible for final inclusion (n = 941). A total of 487 patients received postoperative electrical stimulation and 454 patients received control or sham stimulation. All evidence was of moderate quality. Electrical stimulation (pulsed electromagnetic fields, direct current, and capacitive coupling) increased the odds of a successful fusion by 2.5-fold relative to control (OR = 2.53, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.43, p < 0.00001). A test for subgroup interaction by stimulation type, smoking status, and number of levels fused was not significant (p = 0.93, p = 0.82 and p = 0.65, respectively). This systematic review and meta-analysis found moderate-quality evidence supporting the use of postoperative electrical stimulation as an adjunct to spinal fusion surgery. Patients treated with electrical stimulation have significantly greater rates of successful fusion. The level of evidence for this study is therapeutic level I.

Injury in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Training.

BACKGROUND: Brazilian jiu-jitsu (BJJ) is a grappling-based martial art that can lead to injuries both in training and in competition. There is a paucity of data regarding injuries sustained while training in BJJ, in both competitive and noncompetitive jiu-jitsu athletes. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that most BJJ practitioners sustain injuries to various body locations while in training and in competition. Our primary objective was to describe injuries sustained while training for BJJ, both in practice and in competition. Our secondary objectives were to classify injury type and to explore participant and injury characteristics associated with wanting to quit jiu-jitsu after injury. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study. METHODS: We conducted a survey of all BJJ participants at a single club in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. We developed a questionnaire including questions on demographics, injuries in competition and/or training, treatment received, and whether the participant considered discontinuing BJJ after injury. RESULTS: A total of 70 BJJ athletes participated in this study (response rate, 85%). Ninety-one percent of participants were injured in training and 60% of competitive athletes were injured in competitions. Significantly more injuries were sustained overall for each body region in training in comparison with competition (P < 0.001). Two-thirds of injured participants required medical attention, with 15% requiring surgery. Participants requiring surgical treatment were 6.5 times more likely to consider quitting compared with those requiring other treatments, including no treatment (odds ratio [OR], 6.50; 95% CI, 1.53-27.60). Participants required to take more than 4 months off training were 5.5 times more likely to consider quitting compared with those who took less time off (OR, 5.48; 95% CI, 2.25-13.38). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of injury is very high among BJJ practitioners, with 9 of 10 practitioners sustaining at least 1 injury, commonly during training. Injuries were primarily sprains and strains to fingers, the upper extremity, and neck. Potential participants in BJJ should be informed regarding significant risk of injury and instructed regarding appropriate precautions and safety protocols. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should be aware of the substantial risk of injury among BJJ practitioners and the epidemiology of the injuries as outlined in this article.

Nonoperative Treatments for Knee Osteoarthritis: An Evaluation of Treatment Characteristics and the Intra-Articular Placebo Effect: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommending various nonoperative treatments for patients with knee osteoarthritis remain inconsistent. Much of this controversy relates to what constitutes a clinically important effect. The purposes of the present study were to compare treatment effect sizes from recent meta-analyses evaluating pharmacological or medical device interventions for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis and to further assess the clinical impact that the intra-articular placebo effect may have on intra-articular injection therapies. METHODS: A search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase from the inception date of each database through May 30, 2017 was conducted for all articles involving meta-analyses of pharmacological or medical device knee osteoarthritis treatments compared with controls. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility and extracted data for analysis. We present effect estimates on a standardized mean difference (SMD) scale and compare them all against a threshold for clinical importance of 0.50 standard deviation (SD) unit. RESULTS: Ten meta-analyses (sample size range, 110 to 39,814) providing a total of 19 different effect sizes for pain were included in this review. SMD estimates ranged from 0.08 to 0.79 for various electrical modalities, orthotic devices, topical and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), dietary supplements, and intra-articular injection therapies. Seventeen treatments demonstrated significant improvements in terms of pain when patients who had received treatment were compared with controls. After accounting for the intra-articular placebo effect, the greatest effect estimates were those of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma and high molecular weight hyaluronic acid. When these were judged according to our threshold for clinical importance, high molecular weight intra-articular hyaluronic acid was found to have the most precise effect estimate that surpassed this threshold. Platelet-rich plasma was found to provide the greatest point estimate of the treatment effect, but the precision around this estimate had the largest amount of uncertainty across all treatments. CONCLUSIONS: While many nonoperative treatments demonstrated significant improvements in pain, we found the greatest effect estimates for intra-articular treatments. While platelet-rich plasma provided the greatest point estimate of the treatment effect, variability among studies suggests that future research into optimal formulations is required. The strongest current evidence supports clinically important and significant treatment effects with intra-articular hyaluronic acid formulations between 1,500 and >6,000 kDa. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.