Proximal fibular osteotomy versus high tibial osteotomy for treating knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) with varus alignment and medial space stenosis is a common degenerative disorder in the elderly. To reallocate the force bearing from the medial to the lateral compartment, the anti-varus osteotomy, including high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and proximal fibular osteotomy (PFO), corrects the mechanical lines of lower extremities using surgical methods, which alleviates the abrasion of medial cartilage and relieves pain. PFO is based on the "non-uniform settlement" theory. It is to cut small section of the proximal fibula, i.e., below the fibula head, which breaks the fibula and weakens its support for the lateral of the tibial plateau, lastly reduces the gap on the lateral side of the knee joint and offsets the knee varus deformity caused by weight bearing. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of PFO versus HTO intervention. METHODS: Twenty-three studies were acquired from PubMed, Embase, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Database and Cochrane Library. The data were extracted by two of the coauthors independently and were analyzed by RevMan5.3. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies including 14 randomized controlled trials and 9 observational studies were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from low to high. The pooled results of the mean operation time (MD = - 38.75, 95% CI = - 45.66 to - 31.85, P < 0.00001), intraoperative bleeding (std. MD = - 4.12, 95% CI = - 5 to - 3.24, P < 0.00001), length of hospital stay (MD = - 3.77, 95% CI = - 4.98 to - 2.56, P < 0.00001) and postoperative complications (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.37-1.18, P = 0.16) showed that the differences were statistically significant between the two interventions. The postoperative differences of visual analogue score (VAS) (MD = 0.15 95% CI = - 0.39 to 0.69, P = 0.58), hospital for Special Surgery knee score (HSS) (MD = - 2.68, 95% CI = - 6.30 to 0.94, P = 0.15), American knee society (AKS) score (MD = 0.04, 95% CI = - 0.69 to 0.77, P = 0.91), western Ontario and McMaster university of orthopedic index (WOMAC) (MD = 8.09, 95% CI = 2.06-14.13, P = 0.009) and femur-tibia angle (FTA) (MD = - 0.03, 95% CI = - 5.39 to 5.33, P = 0.99) were not statistically significant. Sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results and the publication bias was not apparent. CONCLUSIONS: PFO and HTO have the same short-term efficacy in the treatment of KOA, but PFO can reduce the operation time, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay and postoperative complications, which has certain advantages. Clinically, for patients with many complications and poor surgical tolerance, PFO can be preferred.

Arthroscopic labral debridement versus labral repair for patients with femoroacetabular impingement: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a common cause of hip pain and even tearing of the acetabular labrum in young adults and athletes. Either arthroscopic labral debridement (LD) or labral repair (LR) technique for FAI patients is needed to choose. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic LD versus LR intervention. METHODS: The five studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The data were extracted by two of the coauthors independently and were analyzed by RevMan5.3. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Four observational studies and one prospective randomized study were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials indicated a low to moderate risk of bias. The pooled results of Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), failure rate of surgeries and complications showed that the differences were not statistically significant between the two interventions. The difference of modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and satisfaction rate was statistically significant between LD and LR intervention, and LR treatment was more effective. Sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results and there were too less included articles to verify the publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Hip arthroscopy with either LR or LD is an effective treatment for symptomatic FAI. The difference of mHHS, VAS score, and satisfaction rate was statistically significant between LD and LR intervention, and arthroscopic LR could re-create suction-seal effect, potentially reduce microinstability, which demonstrated a trend toward better clinical efficacy and comparable safety compared with LD. The arthroscopic LR technique is recommended as the optical choice for acetabular labrum tear with FAI.