Inconclusive evidence that arthroscopic techniques yield better outcomes than open techniques for subtalar arthrodesis-A systematic review.

IMPORTANCE: Open in situ subtalar arthrodesis (ISTA) has been a standard procedure for treating subtalar arthritis for varied etiologies with good outcomes. There has been a paradigm shift from ISTA to arthroscopic subtalar arthrodesis (ASTA) over the past two decades due to increase in number of surgeons performing arthroscopy worldwide. However, there is only limited evidence in the existing literature to substantiate the benefit of this change with regards to patient benefit. To our knowledge, there are also no systematic reviews comparing the results of the two techniques for subtalar arthrodesis (STA). AIM: Our systematic review aims to determine the superior technique for performing STA by comparing the outcomes, union rates, and complications between open and arthroscopic approach for in situ STA. We hypothesised that both procedures would have similar outcomes, union rates, time to union, and complication rate for in-situ STA. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Three databases, MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, were searched using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to compare the two procedures. Risk of bias assessment was done using The Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for assessing the risk of bias in the included studies. Weighted mean averages were computed for all parameters and tabulated separately for ASTA and ISTA. FINDINGS: We included a total of 22 studies with a total of 978 (ASTA-310, ISTA-668) patients in the review. The most common indication for both techniques was post traumatic subtalar arthritis due to malunited calcaneal fracture in both groups (54.5%). The American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score was better in the ASTA group with a weighted average improvement of 43.4, while the weighted average improvement was 31.1 in the ISTA group, respectively. Patients undergoing ASTA had a weighted average union rate of 95.5% (standard deviation [SD]-3.6) with a weighted average time to union of 12.2 weeks (SD-2.4) while the ISTA group reported 90.7% (SD-6) union rate with a weighted average time to union of 15.5 weeks (SD-8.4). The weighted overall average complication rate was 13.1% (SD-8.9) in ASTA group and 20.3% (SD-16.2) in the ISTA group with hardware-related complications being the most common in both the groups. CONCLUSION: From the existing literature, our review suggests that both ASTA and ISTA techniques are effective procedures for STA. However, there is no conclusive evidence to recommend one technique over another. High quality randomised studies may be further required to clearly define the superiority of one technique over another LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: level III.

Arthroscopic capsular release versus manipulation under anaesthesia for treating frozen shoulder - a prospective randomised study.

PURPOSE: Arthroscopic capsular release (ACR) and Manipulation under anaesthesia(MUA) have been widely used in the treatment of frozen shoulder (FS). However, there is only limited Level-I evidence to prefer ACR over MUA. The purpose of our study was to conduct a randomised trial comparing ACR versus MUA to assess the difference in outcome, complications and cost-effectiveness of both procedures. METHODS: From May 2020 to June 2021, patients presenting with FS were randomised into two groups ACR (n = 44) and MUA (n = 41). Patients with arthritis, full-thickness cuff tears, history of trauma/previous surgery around the shoulder were excluded from the study. Range of movement (ROM), pain grading using visual analogue scale (VAS), functional scores- UCLA, CONSTANT and EuroQol-5D scores were measured pre-operatively and post-operatively. MRI was done at three weeks post-operatively for screening complications of either procedure. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was used for cost-analysis. RESULTS: Post-operatively, patients had significant improvement in pain, ROM and functional scores in both groups (P < 0.001) with no significant difference between groups at 24 weeks of follow-up. Diabetic patients undergoing ACR had lesser improvement in abduction and external rotation when compared to non-diabetic patients. Labral tears in MUA group and bone bruises in ACR group were the most common complications noted on the post-operative MRI. For ACR cost per QALY gained was 896 USD while that for MUA was 424 USD. CONCLUSION: Both ACR and MUA resulted in good improvement in pain and shoulder function. Good outcomes, simple technique and better cost-effectiveness would still make MUA an attractive option over ACR for treating FS.

Insertional versus non-insertional tendoachilles tears: a comparative analysis of various predisposing factors and outcome following a repair.

BACKGROUND: Association of tendon degeneration, pre-existing posterior heel pain, Haglund's bump, retrocalcaneal spur, and mode of injury varies for the insertional and non-insertional type of tendoachilles tears (TA). PURPOSE: The study compares the various predisposing factors that determine the distinct type of TA tear and the outcome following a repair. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of the patients who underwent tendoachilles repair during January 2012-June 2018. Patients above 18 years with a minimum follow-up of two years were included. Patients with calcaneal tuberosity avulsions, prior surgeries, and open injuries were excluded. Patients were divided into groups 1 (insertional tears (IT)) and 2 (non-insertional tears (NIT)), and further subdivided based on the tendon degeneration (as D-degenerative and N-normal sub types) from ultrasound findings. AOFAS score and predisposing factors like degeneration, posterior heel pain, Haglund's bump, spur, and mechanism of injury were compared between the groups. RESULTS: The study included N = 146 with a mean age of 51.6 years and mean follow-up of 38.6 (range 24 to 96) months. IT associated with degeneration (IT-D) had a trivial fall as the predominant mechanism (P < 0.001). All patients had significant postoperative improvement of scores with no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.59) and subgroups (P = 0.27).75.34% had degenerative tendon, of which 64.5% were in the IT group and the rest in the NIT group (P = 0.02). 51.4% patients had a Haglund bump in the IT group and n.s. (P = 0.9). Forty-seven percent of patients had pre-existing posterior heel pain, 68% in IT and 32% in NIT (P = 0.04). Subgroup analysis revealed 65% of patients were in the IT-D subgroup (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Predisposing factors like posterior heel pain, tendon degeneration, and trivial trauma have a strong propensity for insertional TA tear. In contrast, the prominence of Haglund's bump does not predispose to a distinct type of TA tears. The outcome following a surgical repair-yields good results with no difference between the two groups.

Single-Stage Arthroscopy-Assisted Reduction and Internal Fixation (ARIF) of Tibial Rim Fracture With Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Repair of Posterolateral Complex and Meniscal Injury.

Multiligament knee injury with periarticular fractures are high-velocity injuries and generally require a staged treatment approach that involves multiple hospitalizations and results in delayed return to activity. We report a single-stage management technique for these injuries with arthroscopy-assisted reduction and internal fixation of a depressed tibial rim fracture with concomitant posterolateral complex repair, medial meniscal repair, and posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.