Clinical efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma versus local Methylprednisolone Injection in Lateral Epicondylitis.

Objective: To compare the results of local administration of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with methylprednisolone in the treatment of tennis elbow. Methods: This retrospective cohort was conducted at Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Center (JPMC) during January 2017 to April 2018. Patients conservatively managed for lateral epicondylitis with local methylprednisolone injection or PRP injection were approached for possible inclusion in the study at 12 months of treatment. The primary outcome of the study was to determine the Numerical Pain Rating Score (NPRS) on resisted wrist extension. Whereas, the secondary outcomes were quick disability arm, shoulder, and hand score (qDASH), the grip strength and VAS for satisfaction. The baseline, six weeks and three month data on Grip strength, NPRS, and qDASH were extracted from the patients' medical records maintained at the hospital. The data were analyzed by using SPSS software. Results: A total of 91 patients were approached, of them 81 (89.01%) agreed to participate. There were 46 (56.79%) who received local methylprednisolone injection and 35 (43.20%) received PRP. At 12 months follow up, there was no difference in NPRS pain scores between the two groups (p=0.691); pain decreased in both groups at six weeks and at 12 months. There was no significant difference in the functional outcome (qDASH score) in both groups. Both groups were equally satisfied with the treatment they had received. Conclusion: The study concluded that there is no difference between outcome and efficacy of both treatment modalities used for the treatment of tennis elbow in alleviating pain at 12 months.

[RETRACTED] Negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressing for open fractures in lower extremity trauma

AIMS: It has been generally accepted that open fractures require early skeletal stabilization and soft-tissue reconstruction. Traditionally, a standard gauze dressing was applied to open wounds. There has been a recent shift in this paradigm towards negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes in patients with open tibial fractures receiving standard dressing versus NPWT. METHODS: This multicentre randomized controlled trial was approved by the ethical review board of a public sector tertiary care institute. Wounds were graded using Gustilo-Anderson (GA) classification, and patients with GA-II to III-C were included in the study. To be eligible, the patient had to present within 72 hours of the injury. The primary outcome of the study was patient-reported Disability Rating Index (DRI) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included quality of life assessment using 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12), wound infection rates at six weeks and nonunion rates at 12 months. Logistic regression analysis and independent-samples t-test were applied for secondary outcomes. Analyses of primary and secondary outcomes were performed using SPSS v. 22.0.1 and p-values of < 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 486 patients were randomized between January 2016 and December 2018. Overall 206 (49.04%) patients underwent NPWT, while 214 (50.95%) patients were allocated to the standard dressing group. There was no statistically significant difference in DRI at 12 months between NPWT and standard dressing groups (mean difference 0.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.08 to 1.1; p = 0.581). Regarding SF-12 scores at 12 months follow-up, there was no significant difference at any point from injury until 12 months (mean difference 1.4; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.9; p = 0.781). The 30-day deep infection rate was slightly higher in the standard gauze dressing group. The non-union odds were also comparable (odds ratio (OR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.45; p = 0.685). CONCLUSION: Our study concludes that NPWT therapy does not confer benefit over standard dressing technique for open fractures. The DRI, SF-12 scores, wound infection, and nonunion rates were analogous in both study groups. We suggest surgeons continue to use cheaper and more readily available standard dressings. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):912-917.

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Open Reduction and Internal Fixation and Ilizarov for Schatzker Type V and Type VI Fractures.

Introduction Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), hybrid fixation, and external fixation are available treatment options for bicondylar fractures of the proximal tibia but which one is superior to the others is not yet established. Therefore, the study aimed to establish a gold standard treatment option for bicondylar fractures by comparing the clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes managed by Ilizarov and ORIF at 24 months. Methods This was a retrospective study conducted from 2009 to 2014 at a public sector, tertiary care, level I trauma center. Patients with Schatzker type V and type VI open and closed fractures were included. Floating knee, pathological fractures of the tibia, and patients having medical conditions were excluded from the study. Honkonen and Jarvinen (HJ) criteria for subjective, clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes were used to compare between the two groups at 24 months. Demographic data included age, gender, Schatzker type, mechanism of injury, and range of knee flexion. Chi-square was used to find the level of significance, which was 0.05. Results A total of 137 patients were included in this study, with 68 patients in the ORIF group and 69 in the Ilizarov group during the study period. The mean age of the patients was 45.08 ± 10.52, respectively. The male to female distribution was 107/30 (78.1% and 21.89%). According to the mechanism of injury, road traffic accidents (RTA) were the primary cause of injury: 96 (70.07%), falls were 21 (15.32%), and gunshots were 18 (13.13%). Seventy-four were Schatzker type VI (54.01%) whereas 63 (45.98) were Shcatzker V. The average knee flexion at 24 months was 115.51 ± 16.82. There were no differences in the clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes at 24 months between the two treatment groups. Conclusion No single treatment option can be applied in all cases, and the decision depends on the complexity of the injury, the surgeon's expertise, and host factors.

Ankylosing spondylitis: recent breakthroughs in diagnosis and treatment.

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is generally easy to diagnose when the characteristic findings of the "bamboo" spine and fused sacroiliac joints are present on radiographs. Unfortunately, these changes are usually seen late in the disease after tremendous suffering has been incurred by the patient. Diagnostic delay averages seven to ten years. Historically, once the diagnosis was made, the treatment options were often inadequate or poorly tolerated in many individuals. This condition most often starts in early adulthood when people are typically in the earlier stages of their careers, resulting in diminished workforce participation and decreased quality of life. If an individual has a family physician, this might be the first encounter with a healthcare provider. Quite often, the initial practitioner is sought at a public walk-in clinic or chiropractic office. In recent years, there have been two major developments in the management of AS that make earlier diagnosis possible and offer the hope of alleviating pain and preventing structural changes that result in loss of function. These developments include the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to visualize the inflammatory changes in the sacroiliac joint and the axial spine, and the demonstration that tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocking agents are highly efficacious in reducing spinal inflammation and possibly in slowing radiographic progression. This review outlines diagnostic strategies that can help identify AS in its earlier stages. Special attention is focused on treatment advances, including the use of anti-TNF agents, and how these medications have been incorporated into clinical recommendations for daily use.