Intramedullary versus plate fixation of both bone forearm fractures in skeletally immature patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Both bone forearm fractures (BBFFs) are a common injury amongst the pediatric population. The main indications of surgical fixation are open, irreducible, or unstable fractures. The two most commonly used surgical techniques are closed or open reduction with intramedullary fixation (IMF) and open reduction with plate fixation (PF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine which fixation method is superior for BBFFs. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing IMF and PF. We extracted data on union rates, complications, early hardware removal rates, reoperation rates, and radiographic, clinical, and perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 922 patients (539 IMF and 383 PF). Similar union rates were achieved by both fixation technique. IMF was associated with a higher incidence of symptomatic hardware, and early hardware removal. Better restoration of the radial bow was observed with the PF group, especially in older children and adolescents. The rate of excellent function was comparable between groups, whereas better cosmesis was reported with the IMF group. Despite shorter fluoroscopy time and immobilization time, PF demonstrated longer tourniquet time, operating time, and hospital stay compared to IMF. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference between IMF and PF in terms of union rates and functional outcomes taking in consideration the merits and demerits of each technique. High-quality randomized controlled trials are, therefore, necessary to determine the superiority of one fixation technique over the other. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Comparison of the clinical and radiological outcomes of Puddu and TomoFix plates for medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy: A two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO) requires fixation devices for stabilization of the osteotomy gap. The two most commonly used fixation devices are the Puddu and the TomoFix plates. Based on its design, each implant generates a characteristic stability profile. The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to investigate the short-term clinical and radiological outcomes of OWHTO using the Puddu and TomoFix plating systems. We hypothesized that the TomoFix plate would achieve superior clinical and radiographic results compared to the Puddu plate. METHODS: A total of 60 patients were randomly allocated to undergo OWHTO either using the Puddu plate or the TomoFix plate if conservative treatment failed with symptomatic medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA) stage I or II according to Ahlbäck classification, and varus malalignment. All patients underwent clinical and radiological assessment preoperatively, and at 3, 6, 12, and 24months postoperatively. Radiological measurement of the hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle, and posterior tibial slope (PTS) was performed. Functional assessment was carried out using the Hospital for Special Surgery Knee-Rating Scale (HSS) and the Western Ontario McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index. Patients were also evaluated for intraoperative and postoperative complications throughout the follow-up period. RESULTS: The mean angular correction was 9.6±4°, and 10.5±4.8° in the Puddu and TomoFix groups, respectively (p=0.488). The mean PTS change was significantly higher in the Puddu group (3.4±1.1°) compared to the TomoFix group (0.8±0.7°) (p<0.001). There was a statistically significant improvement in the mean HSS and WOMAC in both groups until one year postoperatively. Neither HSS nor WOMAC showed a statistically significant difference between the Puddu and TomoFix groups at any time during the first two postoperative years. The overall complication rate was not significantly different between the Puddu and TomoFix groups. However, the TomoFix group demonstrated higher incidence of symptomatic hardware (23% vs. 3.3%) and removal of metalwork (17% vs. 0%) than the Puddu group (p=0.023 and 0.020, respectively). CONCLUSION: This RCT suggests that the implant choice for OWHTO has no significant impact on functional outcomes during the first 2years postoperatively. While the Puddu plate was associated with an unintentional increase in the PTS during the surgery, both implants allowed coronal and sagittal plane corrections to be preserved postoperatively. The overall complication rates were similar, but the TomoFix required more material to be removed because it is more cumbersome. However, these results need to be confirmed on a larger scale. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II; randomized controlled trial.

Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: Arthrodesis has been a valid treatment option for spinal diseases, including spondylolisthesis and lumbar spinal stenosis. Posterolateral and posterior lumbar interbody fusion are amongst the most used fusion techniques. Previous reports comparing both methods have been contradictory. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish substantial evidence on which fusion method would achieve better outcomes. METHODS: Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes of interest between posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). We extracted data on clinical outcome, complication rate, revision rate, fusion rate, operation time, and blood loss. We calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome and the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: We retrieved 8 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, with a total of 616 patients (308 PLF, 308 PLIF). The results of our analysis revealed that patients who underwent PLIF had significantly higher fusion rates. No statistically significant difference was identified in terms of clinical outcomes, complication rates, revision rates, operation time or blood loss. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comparison between PLF and PLIF based on RCTs. Although PLIF had higher fusion rates, both fusion methods achieve similar clinical outcomes with equal complication rate, revision rate, operation time and blood loss at 1-year minimum follow-up.

Efficacy and safety of monopolar versus bipolar radial head arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Radial head replacement is the main line of treating complex unstable elbow injuries. Radial head prostheses are either monopolar or bipolar. The difference between both designs in patients' clinical outcomes and postoperative complications is not yet clear. So, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of monopolar vs. bipolar implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched to identify studies comparing monopolar and bipolar implants. Data on clinical outcomes, postoperative complications, revision, and removal rates were extracted. RESULTS: Nine studies met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 591 patients (365 monopolar and 226 bipolar). Both prostheses achieved similar ranges of motion; Mayo Elbow Performance Score; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; and visual analog scale for pain. Incidence of postoperative complications was also similar between both designs. Revision and removal rates were 24%, 8% and 29%, 14% for monopolar and bipolar implants, respectively, but no statistically significant difference could be detected. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was found between monopolar and bipolar radial head prostheses in terms of efficacy and safety. Therefore, high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine the superiority of one design over the other.

Long- versus short-segment fixation with an index vertebral screw for management of thoracolumbar fractures.

The choice of the best stabilization technique for thoracolumbar fractures remains controversial. While LSF includes too many motion segments, SSF is associated with a high rate of fixation failure and subsequent loss of kyphotic correction. Our objective is to compare the surgical, clinical, and radiological outcomes of thoracolumbar spine fixation using long-segment fixation (LSF) versus short-segment fixation (SSF) with a screw in the fractured vertebra. We retrospectively evaluated 63 patients with single- level thoracolumbar fracture types A and B treated during the period between 2010 and 2017 in our institution. Group A (30 patients) was treated by SSF with an intermediate screw in the fractured vertebra, while group B (33 patients) was treated by LSF. Both groups were compared in terms of surgical, clinical, and radiological outcomes. The mean operative blood loss was significantly lower in group A than in group B (451.3 ± 79.9 and 690 ± 92.1 ml, respectively). The mean operative time in Group A was significantly shorter than in group B (58.4 ± 14.8 and 81.5 ± 12.3 minutes, respectively). Both groups achieved a similar Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. No significant difference was found as regards the kyphotic angle correction and the correction loss at final follow-up. In conclusion, SSF with a screw in the fractured vertebra achieved comparable functional and radiological outcomes to LSS with less blood loss and operative time.

Correlation of radiographic parameters with clinical correction in idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus undergoing Ponseti treatment.

PURPOSE: Idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus is the most commonly encountered congenital deformity of the foot. Ponseti technique of manipulation is the treatment of choice. The Pirani classification is a reliable scoring system for clinical evaluation of clubfeet. The role of radiographic parameters in the evaluation and treatment of clubfeet is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation of radiological parameters with clinical correction in patients with idiopathic clubfeet undergoing correction using Ponseti method. METHODS: Between March 2018 and March 2019, 42 feet in 27 patients with idiopathic clubfeet were treated in our hospital. We used the Pirani scoring system for clinical evaluation. Anteroposterior and lateral views of the feet were taken before and after correction and at the last follow-up. The anteroposterior view was evaluated for the talocalcaneal angle and talo-first metatarsal angle, while the lateral view was only evaluated for the talocalcaneal angle. RESULTS: Twelve were boys (44.4%), and 15 were girls (55.6%). The deformity was bilateral in 15 patients (55.6%) and unilateral in 12 patients (44.4%). The average age was three months. According to the Pirani score, the mean Pirani Total score was 4.4 before correction and reduced to 0.4 after correction. The mean talocalcaneal angle in anteroposterior and lateral views was 15.1° and 7.8° before correction, increased to 32.7° and 31.8° after correction, respectively. The mean talocalcaneal index increased from 23.2 before correction to 64.5 after correction. The mean talo-first metatarsal angle in anteroposterior view improved from 25.7° before correction to - 1.6° after correction. The relation between the differences in Pirani scores before and after correction and the differences in measured radiographic parameters before and after correction revealed a statistically significant correlation. CONCLUSION: Radiographic parameters showed a statistically significant correlation with the clinical outcome. Thus, evaluation of clubfeet correction treated by Ponseti technique can rely mainly on clinical scores with limited utilization of radiological assessment.

Radial shortening, bone grafting and vascular pedicle implantation versus radial shortening alone in Kienböck's disease.

We prospectively compared outcomes of two surgical procedures for Stage II and IIIa Kienböck's disease with negative ulnar variance. Group I (13 wrists) was treated with radial shortening alone, and Group II (14 wrists) with combined radial shortening, bone grafting and implantation of a vascular pedicle. At follow-up 3 to 7 years (mean 4.5) after operation, scores by the Quick version of the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire and scores for pain and grip strength were significantly better in Group II, but the differences were rather small. On MRI all patients in Group II had revascularization, but 11 patients in Group I had not. We conclude that combining radial shortening with the revascularization procedure improved revascularization. Clinically, both treatments were efficient, and the additional bone grafting and vascular pedicle insertion did not greatly improve function, although statistically there were differences in several follow-up variables. This study also could not identify the independent role of the three procedures (drilling, grafting and artery insertion) in Group II, because decompression or bone grafting alone may be effective.Level of evidence: II.