The efficacy and safety of ankle blocks for foot and ankle surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve blocks may be essential elements in a multimodal pain management regime following foot and ankle surgery. We assessed the effects of ankle blocks compared with no intervention/sham block or a sciatic nerve block in patients undergoing surgery of the foot or ankle. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase for randomised clinical trials comparing ankle block with no intervention/sham block or a sciatic nerve block for patients undergoing surgery of the foot or ankle. Our primary outcomes were duration of analgesia and cumulative 24-hour opioid consumption. We followed the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook, and performed meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA), and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included five trials (362 participants) comparing ankle block with no intervention/sham block and three trials (247 participants) comparing ankle block with a sciatic nerve block. Ankle block may increase the duration of analgesia when compared with no intervention/sham block (MD 431 min; 96.7% CI 208 to 654), but the evidence was very uncertain. Duration was decreased when compared with a sciatic nerve block (MD -410 min; 96.7% CI -462 to -358). The ankle block duration was probably important in both comparisons. The effects on cumulative 24-hour opioid consumption were very uncertain in both comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Ankle block may increase the duration of analgesia when compared with no intervention/sham block, but the evidence was very uncertain, and decrease the duration of analgesia when compared with a sciatic nerve block. The ankle block duration was probably clinically important in both comparisons. The effects on cumulative 24-hour opioid consumption were very uncertain.

Augmentation of implant surfaces with BMP-2 in a revision setting : effects of local and systemic bisphosphonate.

AIMS: We wanted to evaluate the effects of a bone anabolic agent (bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2)) on an anti-catabolic background (systemic or local zoledronate) on fixation of allografted revision implants. METHODS: An established allografted revision protocol was implemented bilaterally into the stifle joints of 24 canines. At revision surgery, each animal received one BMP-2 (5 µg) functionalized implant, and one raw implant. One group (12 animals) received bone graft impregnated with zoledronate (0.005 mg/ml) before impaction. The other group (12 animals) received untreated bone graft and systemic zoledronate (0.1 mg/kg) ten and 20 days after revision surgery. Animals were observed for an additional four weeks before euthanasia. RESULTS: No difference was detected on mechanical implant fixation (load to failure, stiffness, energy) between local or systemic zoledronate. Addition of BMP-2 had no effect on implant fixation. In the histomorphometric evaluation, implants with local zoledronate had more area of new bone on the implant surface (53%, p = 0.025) and higher volume of allograft (65%, p = 0.007), whereas implants in animals with systemic zoledronate had the highest volume of new bone (34%, p = 0.003). Systemic zoledronate with BMP-2 decreased volume of allograft by 47% (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Local and systemic zoledronate treatment protects bone at different stages of maturity; local zoledronate protects the allograft from resorption and systemic zoledronate protects newly formed bone from resorption. BMP-2 in the dose evaluated with experimental revision implants was not beneficial, since it significantly increased allograft resorption without a significant compensating anabolic effect. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(8):488-497.

Healing in peri-implant gap with BMP-2 and systemic bisphosphonate is dependent on BMP-2 dose-A canine study.

The bone-implant interface of cementless orthopedic implants can be described as a series of uneven sized gaps with discontinuous areas of direct bone-implant contact. Bridging these voids and crevices by addition of an anabolic stimulus to increase new bone formation can potentially improve osseointegration of implants. Bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2) stimulates osteoblast formation to increase new bone formation but also indirectly stimulates osteoclast activity. In this experiment, we investigate the hypothesis that osseointegration, defined as mechanical push-out and histomorphometry, depends on the dose of BMP-2 when delivered as an anabolic agent with systemic administration of the anti-resorptive agent zoledronate to curb an increase in osteoclast activity. Four porous coated titanium implants (one with each of three doses of surface-applied BMP-2 (15 µg; 60 µg; 240 µg) and untreated) surrounded by a 0.75 mm empty gap, were inserted into the distal femurs of each of twelve canines. Zoledronate IV (0.1 mg/kg) was administered 10 days into the observation period of 4 weeks. Bone-implant specimens were evaluated by mechanical push-out test and histomorphometry. The 15 µg implants had the best fixation on all mechanical parameters and largest surface area covered with new bone compared to the untreated, 60 and 240 µg implants, as well as the highest volume of new bone in the implant gap compared to 60 and 240 µg implants. The results in a canine implant model demonstrated that a narrow range of BMP-2 doses have opposite effects in bridging an empty peri-implant gap with bone, when combined with systemic zoledronate. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:1406-1414, 2018.

Dose-Dependent Resorption of Allograft by rhBMP-2 Uncompensated by New Bone Formation-A Canine Study With Implants and Zoledronate.

BACKGROUND: Impacted bone allograft is used to restore lost bone in total joint arthroplasties. Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) can induce new bone formation to improve allograft incorporation, but they simultaneously invoke a seemingly dose-dependent allograft resorption mediated by osteoclasts. Bisphosphonates effectively inhibit osteoclast activity. Predicting allograft resorption when augmented with bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2), we intended to investigate whether a balanced bone metabolism was achievable within a range of BMP-2 doses with systemic zoledronate treatment. METHODS: Implants were coated with 1 of 3 BMP-2 doses (15 µg, 60 µg, and 240 µg) or left untreated. Implants were surrounded by a 2.5-mm gap filled with impacted morselized allograft. Each of the 12 dogs included received 1 of each implant (15 µg, 60 µg, 240 µg, and untreated), 2 in each proximal humerus. During the 4-week observation period, zoledronate intravenous (0.1 mg/kg) was administered to all animals 10 days after surgery as anticatabolic treatment. Implant osseointegration was evaluated by histomorphometry and mechanical push-out tests. RESULTS: Untreated implants had the best mechanical fixation and superior retention of allograft as compared to any of the BMP-2 implants. Both mechanical implant fixation and retention of allograft decreased significantly with BMP-2 dose increments. Surprisingly, there was no difference among the treatment groups in the amount of new bone. CONCLUSION: The use of BMP-2 to augment impaction-grafted implants cannot be recommended even when combined with systemic zoledronate.