RESUMO
Background: Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injuries are common in the active population of the Armed Forces. Symptomatic instability prompts individuals to seek a cure or a sheltered appointment. Despite the increasing numbers of ACL reconstructions performed, the outcomes have not been so spectacular with only a meager percentage of our patients returning to preinjury levels of activity. With the premise that an all-inside ACL reconstruction is likely to result in better functional outcomes, the aim of this study was to compare the short-term functional outcomes of a large consecutive series of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction using the translateral all-inside ACL reconstruction technique (AI) and standard anteromedial portal technique (AM) with a minimum follow-up of one year. Methods: A total of 240 patients with isolated ACL tear underwent ACL reconstruction via the AI or AM technique. Their preoperative and postoperative scores were compared to look for any significant differences in functional outcomes. Results: The two groups were matched for age, BMI, mechanism of injury, and interval from injury to surgery. There was no difference in their preoperative scores. Postoperatively, although there were significant improvements across both groups, there was no significant difference between the groups at any point of time. Conclusion: The AI technique has garnered interest in recent literature in addressing ACL injuries. This study found no discernible benefit of the AI technique when compared to the AM technique in terms of functionality following an ACL reconstruction at any point of time up to 1 year following surgery.
RESUMO
The present study aimed to compare the clinical effects of image-guided versus blind steroid injection to treat shoulder pain, which is always debatable. An electronic search of credible databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing image-guided versus blind steroid injections. The continuous data were pooled as mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous data were grouped as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Sensitivity analysis and leave-one-out analysis were performed. The meta-analysis of 20 RCTs comprising 1136 patients favored image-guided injection based on the MD of the visual analog score (VAS) and shoulder function scores, measured between six weeks follow-up and baseline (MD=0.63, 95% CI [0.13, 1.12], p=0.01 and SMD=0.35, 95% CI [0.05, 0.65], p=0.02, respectively). Meta-analysis did not favor either group regarding the shoulder disability scores or side effects (MD=-2.18, 95% CI [-12.19, 7.83], p=0.67, and OR=0.40, 95% CI [0.14, 1.15], p=0.09, respectively). The image-guided approach was associated with significant improvement in pain and shoulder functionality. However, no significant difference was observed between the two approaches in terms of disability scores and side effects.
