Comparison of Complications and Revisions After Sacral 2 Alar Iliac Screw and Iliac Screw Fixation for Sacropelvic Fixation in Pediatric and Adult Populations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess and compare the postoperative outcomes of iliac screw (IS) fixation versus sacral 2 alar iliac (S2AI) screw fixation in the adult and pediatric populations. METHODS: We searched all comparative studies that compared postoperative outcomes of IS and S2AI fixation techniques for pelvic fixation from the PubMed and Scopus databases up to June 23, 2019. RESULTS: Eleven of 951 studies (N = 632 patients) were eligible; 8, 10, 5, 6, 3, 7, 2, and 2 studies were included in pooling of postoperative complications, revisions, implant failure, screw breakage, screw prominence, wound dehiscence, wound infection, visual analog scale (VAS), and ambulatory status (AS), respectively. The IS technique had a statistically significant higher chance of postoperative complications, revisions, implant failure, screw breakage, screw prominent, wound dehiscence, and wound infection by 1.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-2.40), 1.91 (95% CI, 1.29-2.82), 2.28 (95% CI, 1.55-3.35), 3.96 (95% CI, 1.46-10.75), 6.83 (95% CI, 2.54-18.37), 4.62 (95% CI, 1.32-16.25), and 3.03 (95% CI, 1.62-5.66), respectively compared with the S2AI fixation technique. In subgroup analysis, the IS technique had a statistically significant higher chance of postoperative complications and revisions of 1.65 (95% CI, 1.25-2.16) and 1.71 (95% CI, 1.03-2.84) in pediatric populations and 2.32 (95% CI, 1.60-3.38) and 1.94 (95% CI, 1.00-3.73) in the adult populations compared with the S2AI fixation technique. IS screw fixation had a lower AS of -0.40 (95% CI, -0.76 to -0.15) than did S2AI fixation in the adult and pediatric populations. However, there was no difference in pain VAS between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Sacropelvic fixation with IS screw fixation had more postoperative complications and revisions and lower AS than did S2AI fixation.

Comparative Outcomes of Perioperative Epidural Steroids After Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess postoperative outcomes and complications after percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) with or without epidural steroids (ES) administration in lumbar disc herniation. METHODS: In a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trial at Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, from May 2014 to May 2015, 30 patients were randomly allocated to receive ES or placebo (saline) after PELD. The primary outcome was 24-hour morphine consumption. Secondary outcomes were visual analog scale (VAS) scores for leg and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index score, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire score, and complications at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 60.0 years, and 0.57% of patients were male. Mean VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores at baseline were 4.7, 6.1, 24.9, 17.5 in the ES group and 5.1, 5.5, 24.7, 16.7 in the placebo group, respectively. Mean morphine requirements measured at 8, 16, and 24 hours were 3.47, 2.67, and <0.001 in the ES group and 3.13, 1.67, and 0.40 in the placebo group. The mean VAS scores measured at 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 hours were 2.99, 2.70, 2.56, 3.30, 3.05, and 2.05 the ES group and 3.13, 1.13, 1.26, 1.65, 1.22, and 1.08 in placebo group. The difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of ES with PELD for lumbar disc herniation does not improve postoperative pain, morphine requirements, or disability scores in the short-term and midterm periods.

Comparative outcomes of epidural steroids versus placebo after lumbar discectomy in lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Treatment for lumbar disc herniation after failed conservative treatment is discectomy. Discectomy can significantly relieve back pain as well as radicular symptoms. However, many patients with lumbar discectomy experience moderate-to-severe back pain and radicular leg pain. The results of application of epidural steroids (ES) for pain management after lumbar discectomy have previously been inconclusive. We have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare outcomes (efficacy and complications) of epidural steroid application and placebo after discectomy in lumbar disc herniation. This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant studies that reported visual analog scale of back and leg pain, morphine consumption, hospital stay and post-operative complications of either group were identified from Medline and Scopus from the date of inception to 28 October 2017. A total of 12 studies were pooled and analysed, with nine studies having undergone conventional discectomy and three studies having undergone minimally invasive surgery (MIS) discectomy. Overall, there were 1006 patients (502 in the ES group and 504 in the placebo group) included. The unstandardized mean difference of VAS of back pain at 1 week and 1 month, leg pain at 1 week and 1 month, morphine consumption and hospital stay was - 0.53 (95% CI - 1.42, 0.36) score, - 0.89 (95% CI - 1.36, - 0.42) score, - 0.63 (95% CI - 0.75, - 0.50) score, - 0.47 (95% CI - 0.78, - 0.15) score, - 8.47 (95% CI - 16.16, - 0.78) mg and - 0.89 (95% CI - 1.49, - 0.30) days lower when compared to placebo after lumbar discectomy in patients with lumbar disc herniation. A total of ten studies compared the ratio of complication between the ES and placebo groups. No significant differences were noted for complications within the two groups (0.92; 95% CI 0.47, 1.83). This meta-analysis analysed lower back and leg pain, morphine consumption and hospital stay, with no significant difference in complications for ES application after lumbar discectomy in lumbar disc herniation. In terms of surgical approaches with MIS compared to conventional approach, this review demonstrates that ES can reduce post-operative morphine consumption when the surgical approach is conventional, but not for MIS.Level of evidence I.

Risk of revision and dislocation in single, dual mobility and large femoral head total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Postoperative dislocation is a challenging complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA) that affects patient outcome worldwide. Instability is one of the main complications with rates exceeding 20% in some series. Currently, alternative acetabular components are available with dual mobility (DMTHA) bearing surfaces and larger femoral head size that may reduce the risk of dislocation, yet provide the functional benefit of standard single mobility (STHA) bearing surface THA. However, whether STHA, big femoral head (BTHA) and DMTHA should be used is still controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare postoperative dislocation and revision (aseptic loosening and infection) of BTHA, STHA and DMTHA in primary or revision THA. These clinical outcomes consist of postoperative dislocation and revision (aseptic loosening and infection). This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant studies were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to June 8, 2017, that reported postoperative dislocation and revision (aseptic loosening and infection) of either implant THA. Eleven of 677 studies (nine comparative studies and two RCTs) (N = 4084 patients) were eligible; all 11 studies were included in pooling. Intervention included dual mobility THA (N = 1068 patients), standard THA (N = 2568 patients), big head THA (N = 378 patients) and constrain THA (N = 70 patients). A network meta-analysis showed that risk of revision and dislocation of DMTHA was significantly lower with RR of 2.19 (1.36, 3.53) and 4.19 (2.04, 8.62) when compared to STHA. While there was no statistically significant risk of having revision and dislocation of DMTHA when compared to BTHA and CTHA. The SUCRA probability of DM and BTHA was in the first and second rank with 46.5 and 44.8% in the risk of revision and 46.7 and 45.1% in the risk of dislocations. In short-term outcomes (5 years or less, with follow-up of 0-5 years), the best implant of choice that has lowest risk of revision and dislocation after THA is DMTHA follow by BTHA. We recommend using dual mobility and big head as an implant for safety in THA. However, there were only two studies that reported long-term survivorship (more than 5 years, with follow-up of 5-15 years). Further research that assesses long-term survivorship is necessary to further evaluate which implants are the best for THA.