Does coracoclavicular augmentation additional to hook plate fixation provide benefits in acute unstable acromioclavicular dislocation? A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation is a common shoulder injury. In treating acute unstable ACJ dislocation, a hook plate (HP) is a straightforward and popular option for ensuring proper reduction and rigid fixation while promoting AC and coracoclavicular (CC) ligament healing. Surgeons typically remove the HP to prevent subacromial impingement and acromial osteolysis; however, concerns about redislocation after implant removal remain. Therefore, additional CC augmentation may be helpful in combination with HP fixation. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes and complications of HP fixation with or without additional CC augmentation for acute unstable ACJ dislocation. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for relevant case-control studies. The primary outcomes were patient-reported outcome measures; the secondary outcomes were pain measured using a visual analog scale (VAS), CC distance (CCD), and complications. Continuous data were assessed using weighted standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and dichotomous data were evaluated with Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: We analyzed one randomized control trial and four case-control studies comparing HP fixation with or without CC augmentation. A total of 474 patients with Rockwood type III or V ACJ dislocation were included. We found no differences in Constant-Murley score (SMD, - 0.58, 95% CI - 1.41 to 0.26; P = 0.18), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (SMD, 0.21, 95% CI - 0.10 to 0.52; P = 0.19), University of California at Los Angeles shoulder rating scale score (SMD, - 0.02, 95% CI - 1.27 to 1.23; P = 0.97), or VAS pain score (SMD, 0.36, 95% CI - 0.16 to 0.88; P = 0.17) between groups. The CC augmentation group had lower odds of osteolysis (OR, 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.74; P = 0.01) and a shorter CCD (SMD, - 0.29, 95% CI - 0.57 to - 0.01; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: HP fixation with CC augmentation is preferable for acute unstable ACJ dislocations. Although CC augmentation did not provide additional benefits related to functional outcomes or pain, it resulted in greater reduction maintenance after implant removal and a 73% lower risk of acromial osteolysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ( CRD42021271118 ).

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Shows Superiority Over Injections for Pain Relief and Grip Strength Recovery in Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To examine the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and injection therapies by synthesizing direct and indirect evidence for all pairs of competing therapies for lateral epicondylitis. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched for all appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs), assessing the effect of ESWT or injection therapies. The primary outcome was short-term (≤3 months) and medium-term (>3 months but ≤12 months) pain, while the secondary outcomes were grip strength and patient-reported outcome measures. All outcomes were assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities to determine a hierarchy of treatments. Sensitivity analysis was performed to eliminate potential therapeutic effects of normal saline (NS) and exclude trials that included patients with acute lateral epicondylitis (LE). RESULTS: 40 RCTs were included to evaluate ESWT and five different injection therapies, including corticosteroids (CSs), autologous whole blood, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A), and dextrose prolotherapy (DPT). DPT (-.78 [-1.34 to -.21]), ESWT (.57 [-.89 to -.25]), PRP (-.48 [-.85 to -.11]), and BoNT-A (-.43 [-.84 to -.02]) outperformed placebo for short-term pain relief; ESWT (-.44 [-.85 to -.04]) outperformed placebo for medium-term pain relief. DPT was ranked as the most optimal short-term and medium-term pain reliever (SUCRA, 87.3% and 98.6%, respectively). ESWT was ranked as the most optimal short-term and medium-term grip strength recovery (SUCRA; 79.4% and 86.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: DPT and ESWT were the best two treatment options for pain control and ESWT was the best treatment option for grip strength recovery. CSs were not recommended for the treatment of LE. More evidence is required to confirm the superiority in pain control of DPT among all these treatment options on LE. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, meta-analysis of Level I randomized controlled trials.