Surgical and Patient-Centered Outcomes of Open versus Arthroscopic Ganglion Cyst Excision: A Systematic Review.

Introduction As the popularity of wrist arthroscopy grows, it continues to prove useful in the treatment of ganglion cysts. Previous studies comparing an arthroscopic technique to traditional open excision have demonstrated generally equivalent results regarding complications and cyst recurrence. However, this systematic review compares the two treatment methods not only regarding cyst recurrence but also regarding patient-centered outcomes. Additionally, new studies in the available literature may allow for further analysis. Methods This systematic review identified 23 articles published between 2000 and 2021 that met inclusion criteria. Articles were assessed for quality, and reported cyst recurrence rates, patient satisfaction, patients' preoperative and postoperative pain, and complications associated with either open or arthroscopic excisions were pooled into open excision and arthroscopic excision groups for analysis. Results In total, 23 studies accounted for 1,670 cases. Pooled data for patient-centered outcomes indicated a significantly higher patient satisfaction rate (89.2 vs 85.6%, p < 0.001) and higher reported pain relief (69.5 vs. 66.7%, p = 0.011) associated with arthroscopic excision versus open excision. Recurrence rates were also significantly lower for the arthroscopic excision group (9.4 vs. 11.2%, p < 0.001). Overall, the complication rate was significantly lower for arthroscopic excision (7.5 vs. 10.7%, p < 0.001), but the complication profile distinctly differed between the two methods. Conclusions Both arthroscopic and open excision of dorsal wrist ganglions are viable treatment options. However, the results of this meta-analysis suggest benefits associated with the arthroscopic technique in both patient-centered outcomes and in traditional, surgical outcomes. This may prove advantageous as wrist arthroscopy becomes more common.

All-Suture Suspensory Button Has Similar Biomechanical Performance to Metal Suspensory Button for Onlay Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis.

Purpose: To evaluate the maximal load at failure, cyclic displacement, and stiffness of onlay subpectoral biceps tenodesis (BT) with an intramedullary unicortical metal button (MB) versus a unicortical all-suture button (ASB). Methods: Eighteen matched paired human cadaveric proximal humeri were randomly allocated for subpectoral BT with either ASB or MB using a high-strength suture. Specimens were tested on a servohydraulic mechanical testing apparatus under cyclic load for 1,000 cycles and then loaded to failure. The clamp was then adjusted to isolate the suture-anchor point interface and loaded to failure. Maximal load to failure, displacement, and stiffness were compared. Results: There was no significant difference between groups in stiffness, displacement, or yield load. The maximal load to failure for the MB was greater than the ASB (347.6 ± 74.1N vs 266.5 ± 69.3N, P = .047). Eight specimens in each group failed by suture pull-through on the tendon. When the suture-anchor point interface was isolated, there was no significant difference in maximal load at failure (MB 586.5 ± 215.8N vs ASB 579.6 ± 255.9N, P = .957). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the MB and ASB have similar biomechanical performance when used in subpectoral BT. Although the MB showed statistically significant greater maximal load to failure, there was no difference between the MB and ASB when the suture-tendon interface was eliminated. Suture pull-through was the most common mode of failure for both implants, underscoring the importance of the suture-tendon interface. Clinical Relevance: Fixation techniques for the treatment of long head of the biceps brachii tenodesis continue to evolve. The use of an all-suture suspensory button has advantages, but it is important to understand if this implant is a biomechanically suitable alternative to a metal suspensory button.

Analgesia in Athletes: A Review of Commonly Used Oral and Injectable Modalities.

Pain is common among athletes at all levels and the treatment of pain can be a challenging and frustrating task. The team physician needs a fundamental knowledge of analgesic strategies as it relates to athletes. It is important to understand the mechanism of action, side effect profile/associated complications, incidence of and indications for use, as well as the controversies associated with the most common analgesic medications used in sports medicine. Several "in vogue" treatment modalities, including cannabidiol, are also becoming more commonly used and are worth discussion.

Intramedullary Foreign Bodies within Fresh-Frozen Fibular Cortical Allograft: A Case Report.

CASE: A 71-year-old man with a proximal humerus fracture nonunion underwent surgery augmented by a fibular cortical strut allograft. On placing the allograft within the proximal humerus, fluoroscopic images showed 2 foreign bodies found to be broken drill bits located within the allograft. The drill bits were extracted, and the allograft was reprepared for use. CONCLUSION: After 2 years of follow-up, no significant sequela related to the foreign bodies was noted. To the best of our knowledge, this case report represents the first-of-its-kind occurrence of broken drill bits found within bone allograft.

SARS-CoV-2 and limb ischemia: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recent spread of severe acute respiratory coronavirus syndrome-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, resulting in new challenges across all medical specialties. Limb and digit ischemia have been associated with COVID-19 infection. This systematic review includes primary studies of COVID-19 limb ischemia to identify risk factors, comorbidities, case characteristics, and treatment strategies to better understand the nature of this disease and its effects on the extremities. METHODS: A literature search for studies detailing COVID-19 infected patients with limb or digit ischemia was performed, identifying 157 articles, 12 of which met inclusion criteria, accounting for 47 patients. Inclusion criteria were (1) primary studies, (2) positive disease diagnosis (3) limb ischemia, (4) reported treatment. Demographic data, case characteristics, treatments, outcomes and mortality were collected and pooled. RESULTS: The average patient age was 67.6 years, predominantly male (79.6%). Of the 44 cases discussing treatment, 13 (30%) patients underwent medical treatment alone, while 23 (52.3%) patients underwent medical plus surgical treatment. Four patients (9.1%) were treated with observation. In 10 of the 12 studies, lab findings, thrombosis, or conclusions supporting a hypercoagulable state as a cause of limb/digit ischemia were cited. Five patients (10.6%) were on vasopressors and 8 patients (17.0%) were on a ventilator. Of those treated with observation alone, there was 100% resolution of symptoms. Of those treated medically without surgical intervention (17 patients), 6 patients (35.3%) were reported to have revascularization, 6 patients (35.3%) died, and the remaining outcomes were not reported. Medical and surgical treatment resulted in one limb amputation (4.4%) and altogether 74% of patients achieved revascularization of the affected limb/digit. Mortality rate was 45%. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infection may be associated with increased risk of limb or digital ischemia, although the quality of evidence supporting this theory is limited. Evidence of inflammatory-mediated thrombosis and endothelial injury are possible explanations which would support the use of immunotherapy in addition to anticoagulation for treatment or prevention of thromboembolic events. Current outcomes and treatment strategies are variable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.