Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears).

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic knee surgery remains a common treatment for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, including for degenerative meniscal tears, despite guidelines strongly recommending against its use. This Cochrane Review is an update of a non-Cochrane systematic review published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of arthroscopic surgery, including debridement, partial menisectomy or both, compared with placebo surgery or non-surgical treatment in people with degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis, degenerative meniscal tears, or both). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 16 April 2021, unrestricted by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or trials using quasi-randomised methods of participant allocation, comparing arthroscopic surgery with placebo surgery or non-surgical interventions (e.g. exercise, injections, non-arthroscopic lavage/irrigation, drug therapy, and supplements and complementary therapies) in people with symptomatic degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis or degenerative meniscal tears or both). Major outcomes were pain, function, participant-reported treatment success, knee-specific quality of life, serious adverse events, total adverse events and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo surgery for outcomes that measured benefits of surgery, but we combined data from all control groups to assess harms and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy). MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials (2105 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 46 to 65 years, and 56% of participants were women. Four trials (380 participants) compared arthroscopic surgery to placebo surgery. For the remaining trials, arthroscopic surgery was compared to exercise (eight trials, 1371 participants), a single intra-articular glucocorticoid injection (one trial, 120 participants), non-arthroscopic lavage (one trial, 34 participants), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (one trial, 80 participants) and weekly hyaluronic acid injections for five weeks (one trial, 120 participants). The majority of trials without a placebo control were susceptible to bias: in particular, selection (56%), performance (75%), detection (75%), attrition (44%) and selective reporting (75%) biases. The placebo-controlled trials were less susceptible to bias and none were at risk of performance or detection bias. Here we limit reporting to the main comparison, arthroscopic surgery versus placebo surgery. High-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery leads to little or no difference in pain or function at three months after surgery, moderate-certainty evidence indicates there is probably little or no improvement in knee-specific quality of life three months after surgery, and low-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery may lead to little or no difference in participant-reported success at up to five years, compared with placebo surgery. Mean post-operative pain in the placebo group was 40.1 points on a 0 to 100 scale (where lower score indicates less pain) compared to 35.5 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 4.6 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 better to 9 better; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 309 participants). Mean post-operative function in the placebo group was 75.9 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better function) compared to 76 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 0.1 points better (95% CI 3.2 worse to 3.4 better; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 302 participants). Mean post-operative knee-specific health-related quality of life in the placebo group was 69.7 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better quality of life) compared with 75.3 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 5.6 points better (95% CI 0.36 better to 10.68 better; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 188 participants). We downgraded this evidence to moderate certainty as the 95% confidence interval does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change. After surgery, 74 out of 100 people reported treatment success with placebo and 82 out of 100 people reported treatment success with arthroscopic surgery at up to five years (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.86; I2 = 53%; 3 trials, 189 participants). We downgraded this evidence to low certainty due to serious indirectness (diversity in definition and timing of outcome measurement) and serious imprecision (small number of events). We are less certain if the risk of serious or total adverse events increased with arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo or non-surgical interventions. Serious adverse events were reported in 6 out of 100 people in the control groups and 8 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy groups from eight trials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.83; I2 = 47%; 8 trials, 1206 participants). Fifteen out of 100 people reported adverse events with control interventions, and 17 out of 100 people with surgery at up to five years (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.70; I2 = 48%; 9 trials, 1326 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to serious imprecision (small number of events) and possible reporting bias (incomplete reporting of outcome across studies). Serious adverse events included death, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis and deep infection. Subsequent knee surgery (replacement or high tibial osteotomy) was reported in 2 out of 100 people in the control groups and 4 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy surgery groups at up to five years in four trials (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.94 to 7.34; I2 = 11%; 4 trials, 864 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to the small number of events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic surgery provides little or no clinically important benefit in pain or function, probably does not provide clinically important benefits in knee-specific quality of life, and may not improve treatment success compared with a placebo procedure. It may lead to little or no difference, or a slight increase, in serious and total adverse events compared to control, but the evidence is of low certainty. Whether or not arthroscopic surgery results in slightly more subsequent knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy) compared to control remains unresolved.

Heterotopic Ossification Following Arthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture.

BACKGROUND: Heterotopic ossification (HO) is a frequent complication following hip surgery. Using data from the Hip Fracture Evaluation with Alternatives of Total Hip Arthroplasty versus Hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH) trial, we aimed to (1) determine the prevalence of HO following total hip arthroplasty (THA) for femoral neck fracture in patients ≥50 years of age, (2) identify whether HO is associated with an increased risk of revision surgery within 24 months after the fracture, and (3) determine the impact of HO on functional outcomes. METHODS: We performed a multivariable Cox regression analysis using revision surgery as the dependent variable and HO as the independent variable. We compared Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores between participants with and those without HO at 24 months. RESULTS: Of 1,441 participants in the study, 287 (19.9%) developed HO within 24 months. HO was not associated with subsequent revision surgery. Grade-III HO was associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant deterioration in the total WOMAC score, which was mainly related to the function component of the score, compared with grade I or II. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of grade-III HO on the functional outcomes and quality of life after THA for hip fracture is clinically important, and HO prophylaxis for selected high-risk patients may be appropriate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Posterolateral or direct lateral approach for hemiarthroplasty after femoral neck fractures: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The posterolateral approach (PLA) and direct lateral approach (DLA) are the most commonly used approaches for inserting a hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. A recent review concluded that the routine use of PLA should be questioned, but this conclusion itself can be questioned. The aim of this study is to provide an updated overview and critical appraisal of the available evidence, focussing on outcomes most relevant for patients. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of literature in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and Cochrane Library. Studies (till June 2018) to identify hip fracture clinical trials/comparative studies comparing alternative surgical approaches (PLA and DLA). We explored sources of heterogeneity and conducted pooled analyses when appropriate. RESULTS: 264 potentially eligible studies were identified of which 1 RCT, 3 prospective, 3 registry data and 5 retrospective studies were included. The RCT consisted performance and attrition bias. The mean MINORS score of the prospective/register studies was 17.3 (SD 3.5) and 13.8 (SD 1.9) of the 5 retrospective studies. The GRADE score for all the outcomes was very low. Due to the high and various types of biases across the included studies, we did not pool the data. None of studies assessed the activities of daily living functionality. 6 studies reported significantly more dislocations or reoperations due to dislocation in the PLA group, 6 other studies found no differences. DLA patients were more likely to develop abductor insufficiency leading to limping and more need for walking aids. The PLA patients tended to have better quality of life, less pain and more satisfaction compared to the DLA patients. CONCLUSION: Based on low-quality studies, PLA may be associated with more dislocations, but patients had less walking problems and a lower tendency to abductor insufficiency compared with DLA. Further clinical trials with methodology rigor are needed to determine which approach is more effective in terms of outcomes relevant to patients.

Knee arthroscopy versus conservative management in patients with degenerative knee disease: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects and complications of arthroscopic surgery compared with conservative management strategies in patients with degenerative knee disease. DESIGN: Systematic review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain, function, adverse events. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar and Open Grey up to August 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: For effects, randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing arthroscopic surgery with a conservative management strategy (including sham surgery) in patients with degenerative knee disease. For complications, RCTs and observational studies. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for patient-important outcomes. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of patient-important outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty (quality) of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs and 12 observational studies. With respect to pain, the review identified high-certainty evidence that knee arthroscopy results in a very small reduction in pain up to 3 months (mean difference =5.4 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 2.0 to 8.8) and very small or no pain reduction up to 2 years (mean difference =3.1, 95% CI -0.2 to 6.4) when compared with conservative management. With respect to function, the review identified moderate-certainty evidence that knee arthroscopy results in a very small improvement in the short term (mean difference =4.9 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 1.5 to 8.4) and very small or no improved function up to 2 years (mean difference =3.2, 95% CI -0.5 to 6.8). Alternative presentations of magnitude of effect, and associated sensitivity analyses, were consistent with the findings of the primary analysis. Low-quality evidence suggested a very low probability of serious complications after knee arthroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Over the long term, patients who undergo knee arthroscopy versus those who receive conservative management strategies do not have important benefits in pain or function. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42016046242.

Hip fracture evaluation with alternatives of total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH): protocol for a multicentre randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures are a leading cause of mortality and disability worldwide, and the number of hip fractures is expected to rise to over 6 million per year by 2050. The optimal approach for the surgical management of displaced femoral neck fractures remains unknown. Current evidence suggests the use of arthroplasty; however, there is lack of evidence regarding whether patients with displaced femoral neck fractures experience better outcomes with total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). The HEALTH trial compares outcomes following THA versus HA in patients 50 years of age or older with displaced femoral neck fractures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: HEALTH is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial where 1434 patients, 50 years of age or older, with displaced femoral neck fractures from international sites are randomised to receive either THA or HA. Exclusion criteria include associated major injuries of the lower extremity, hip infection(s) and a history of frank dementia. The primary outcome is unplanned secondary procedures and the secondary outcomes include functional outcomes, patient quality of life, mortality and hip-related complications-both within 2 years of the initial surgery. We are using minimisation to ensure balance between intervention groups for the following factors: age, prefracture living, prefracture functional status, American Society for Anesthesiologists (ASA) Class and centre number. Data analysts and the HEALTH Steering Committee are blinded to the surgical allocation throughout the trial. Outcome analysis will be performed using a χ(2) test (or Fisher's exact test) and Cox proportional hazards modelling estimate. All results will be presented with 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The HEALTH trial has received local and McMaster University Research Ethics Board (REB) approval (REB#: 06-151). RESULTS: Outcomes from the primary manuscript will be disseminated through publications in academic journals and presentations at relevant orthopaedic conferences. We will communicate trial results to all participating sites. Participating sites will communicate results with patients who have indicated an interest in knowing the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The HEALTH trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00556842).

Limit allogeneic blood use with routine re-use of patient's own blood: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in total hip surgery.

BACKGROUND: There are risks related to blood incompatibility and blood-borne diseases when using allogeneic blood transfusion. Several alternatives exist today, one of which, used for autologous blood salvage perioperatively, is the Sangvia Blood Management System. This study was designed to investigate the efficacy of the system and to add data to previously reported safety results. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Two hundred sixteen patients undergoing primary or revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) were enrolled in this randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded multicenter study. Randomization was either autologous blood transfusion (Sangvia group) or no use of autologous blood (Control group), both in combination with a transfusion protocol for allogeneic transfusion. Patients were followed during hospital stay and at two months after discharge. The primary outcome was allogeneic blood transfusion frequency. Data on blood loss, postoperative hemoglobin/hematocrit, safety and quality of life were also collected. The effectiveness analysis including all patients showed an allogeneic blood transfusion rate of 14% in both groups. The efficacy analysis included 197 patients and showed a transfusion rate of 9% in the Sangvia group as compared to 13% in the Control group (95%CI -0.05-0.12, p = 0.5016). A mean of 522 mL autologous blood was returned in the Sangvia group and lower calculated blood loss was seen. 1095 mL vs 1285 mL in the Control group (95%CI 31-346, p = 0.0175). No differences in postoperative hemoglobin was detected but a lower hematocrit reduction after surgery was seen among patients receiving autologous blood. No relevant differences were found for safety parameters or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: General low use of allogeneic blood in THA is seen in the current study of the Sangvia system used together with a transfusion protocol. The trial setting is under-powered due to premature termination and therefore not able to verify efficacy for the system itself but contributes with descriptive data on safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00822588.