Radiofrequency microtenotomy for plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is limited evidence on outcomes for plantar fascia radiofrequency microtenotomy. An evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis for outcomes of radiofrequency microtenotomy for the treatment of plantar fasciitis was conducted. METHODS: A comprehensive evidence-based literature review of PubMed and Cochrane Databases was conducted in March 2019, which identified 11 relevant articles assessing the efficacy of plantar fascia radiofrequency microtenotomy. The studies were then assigned to a level of evidence (I-IV). Individual studies were reviewed to provide a grade of recommendation (A-C, I) according to the Wright classification in support of or against endoscopic plantar fascia release. Meta-analysis was performed for 7 of the studies that measured AOFAS scores. RESULTS: Based on the results of this evidence-based review, there was fair (grade B) evidence to support plantar fascia radiofrequency microtenotomy. There was a statistically significant mean increase of 40.9 in AOFAS scores post procedure. CONCLUSION: There was fair (grade B) evidence to recommend radiofrequency microtenotomy for plantar fasciitis. There is a need for more high quality level I randomized controlled trials with validated outcome measures to allow for stronger recommendations to be made. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of level II studies.

All-inside Techniques for Meniscal Radial Root Tear Repair.

Meniscal radial root tears can disrupt the load-bearing function of the meniscus and worsen instability in anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. Paracentral radial tears adjacent to the root (types 1, 2, and 4) repaired with a transtibial pullout suture technique can lead to over-medialization of the meniscal root and a high-tension nonanatomic repair. We propose 2 all-inside techniques for anatomic repair of medial and lateral meniscal radial root tears with (1) an all-inside meniscal repair device and (2) an antegrade suture passer. We present the technical requirements and tips for these techniques. For lateral meniscal radial root repair with an all-inside meniscal repair device, ideal viewing is from an anterolateral portal with device entry from an anteromedial portal to reduce the risk of vascular injury. We recommend at least 2 stitches across the tear, with the depth setting limited to 18 to 20 mm for a central stitch and 16 mm or less for a peripherally placed stitch. For root repair with an antegrade suture passer, viewing should be from an anteromedial portal with the passer entering from an anterolateral portal. At least 2 stitches should be placed across the tear, with 1 central and 1 peripheral or 1 superior and 1 inferior.

All-Inside Lateral Meniscal Repair via Anterolateral Portal Increases Risk of Vascular Injury: A Cadaveric Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the distance from the device tip to the neurovascular structures during an all-inside medial and lateral meniscal repair using anteromedial and anterolateral portals in a fresh-frozen cadaveric study. METHODS: Ten fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were studied. The popliteal artery, popliteal vein, and tibial nerve were identified after dissection via a posterior approach. An all-inside meniscal repair device was set to a 20-mm depth limit and inserted into a fixed point in the posterior horn at the meniscocapsular junction. This was performed for medial and lateral menisci via anteromedial and anterolateral arthroscopic portals. The distances between the device tip and the neurovascular structures were measured. We performed t tests to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: The distance between the device and popliteal artery was significantly closer when aimed at the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus via the anterolateral portal (4.7 ± 2.3 mm) versus the anteromedial portal (13.0 ± 8.0 mm, P = .010). The distance to the popliteal vein was closer via the anterolateral portal (6.7 ± 2.9 mm) versus the anteromedial portal (13.9 ± 5.8 mm, P = .004). For medial meniscal repair, the distance to the popliteal artery was significantly closer via the anteromedial portal (12.8 ± 11.3 mm) versus the anterolateral portal (23.8 ± 7.7 mm, P = .022). The distance to the popliteal vein was closer via the anteromedial portal (16.5 ± 11.3 mm) versus the anterolateral portal (28.3 ± 8.2 mm, P = .017). No significant difference was found in the distance to the tibial nerve when aimed at either meniscus via either portal. CONCLUSION: For all-inside meniscal repair, the popliteal vein is at risk and the popliteal artery is at high risk of injury when the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus is repaired via an anterolateral working portal. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The popliteal artery and vein are at risk of injury when the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus undergoes all-inside repair via the anterolateral portal. Surgeons need to be aware of the risks when performing this repair.

Salvage arthrodesis for failed first metatarsophalangeal joint arthroplasty: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aim to provide an evidence-based literature review of salvage arthrodesis for failed first metatarsophalangeal joint arthroplasty with a network meta-analysis. METHODS: A search of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was conducted in December 2016 which identified 12 relevant articles out of 340 articles assessing the efficacy of salvage arthrodesis for failed joint arthroplasty of the first metatarsophalangeal joint. The 12 studies were assigned a level of evidence (I-V) and interventions were graded a level of recommendation (A-C, I) in support of or against the treatment modality. RESULTS: There is fair evidence (grade B) to support salvage arthrodesis with structural bone graft. There is poor evidence (grade C) for salvage arthrodesis without bone graft. There was no good evidence (grade A) to recommend either intervention. Meta-analysis showed that salvage arthrodesis resulted in improved functional outcome over time. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage arthrodesis showed good bone union rates and patient satisfaction. LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE: III - Systematic Review of Level III studies.

Endoscopic plantar fasciotomy for plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the English literature.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is limited evidence on outcomes for endoscopic plantar fasciotomy. OBJECTIVES: An evidence-based literature review for outcomes of endoscopic plantar fasciotomy for the treatment of plantar fasciitis is provided. METHODS: A comprehensive evidence-based literature review of PubMed and Cochrane databases was conducted on 9th March 2019, which identified 12 relevant articles assessing the efficacy of endoscopic plantar fasciotomy. The studies were then assigned to a level of evidence (I-IV). Individual studies were reviewed to provide a grade of recommendation (A-C, I) according to the Wright classification in support of or against endoscopic plantar fascia release. RESULTS: Based on the results of this evidence-based review, there is poor evidence (grade C) to support endoscopic plantar fascia release. Release of the medial 2/3 of the plantar fascia in endoscopic plantar fasciotomy was associated with higher AOFAS score. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of the level of evidence was low (level IV) and grade of recommendation was poor (grade C), there seemed to be good outcomes for endoscopic plantar fasciotomy. There is a need for more high quality level I randomized controlled trials with validated outcome measures to allow for stronger recommendations to be made.