Cryotherapy on postoperative rehabilitation of joint arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The effectiveness of cryotherapy on joint arthroplasty recovery remains controversial. This systematic review was conducted to assess the effectiveness of cryotherapy in patients after joint arthroplasty. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches of several databases including Cochrane Library (2013), MEDLINE (1950-2013), and Embase (1980-2013) were performed. We sought randomised controlled trials that compared the experimental group received any form of cryotherapy with any control group after joint arthroplasty. The main outcomes were postoperative blood loss, adverse events, and pain. Analyses were performed with Revman 5.0. Results were shown as mean differences (MD) and standard deviations or as risk difference and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Ten trials comprised 660 total knee arthroplastys and three trials comprised 122 total hip arthroplastys (THAs) met the inclusion criteria. Blood loss was significantly decreased by cryotherapy (MD = -109.68; 95 % CI -210.92 to -8.44; P = 0.03). Cryotherapy did not increase the risk of adverse effect (n.s.). Cryotherapy decreased pain at the second day of postoperative (MD = -1.32; 95 % CI -2.37 to -0.27; P = 0.0003), but did not decreased pain at the first and third day of postoperative (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: Cryotherapy appears effective in these selected patients after joint arthroplasty. The benefits of cryotherapy on blood loss after joint arthroplasty were obvious. However, the subgroup analysis indicated that cryotherapy did not decreased blood loss after THA. Cryotherapy did not increase the risk of adverse effect. Cryotherapy decreased pain at the second day of postoperative, but did not decreased pain at the first and third day of postoperative. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Press-fit cementless acetabular fixation with and without screws.

PURPOSE: Cementless acetabular fixation for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is widely used. The question of using screws for a better primary and secondary acetabular fixation has been discussed in the literature in recent years. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare fixation of acetabular cups with and without screws in total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Electronic databases Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library were used to search for randomised controlled trials reported through May 2013 of cementless acetabular fixation for THA with and without screws. Two independent reviewers assessed the trials for eligibility and quality. All related data matching our standards were abstracted for meta-analysis by RevMan 5.0. Evaluation criteria included revisions, migration and osteolysis. RESULTS: A total of 1,130 THAs enrolled into five trials were included in this meta-analysis. All studies compared fixation of acetabular cups with and without screws, and our pooled data showed no statistical significance between the two surgical methods in revision, migration and osteolysis. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference between cementless acetabular fixation for THA with and without screws in revisions, migration or osteolysis.