Diagnosis of Achilles Insertional Tendinopathies by Algometry.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosis of Achilles insertional tendinopathies (AIT) is based on pain by tendon palpation. However, there is no consensus or standard with regard to the amount of force to be used during the evaluation. Algometry is a method of measuring the pressure applied in a specific region and can be a method for determining diagnosis values. GOAL: To determine a cutoff value for pain threshold (PT) in the assessment of AIT. DESIGN: This is a prospective case-control study of diagnostic accuracy, to develop a diagnostic criterion. METHODS: Forty asymptomatic individuals and forty patients with AIT, matched by age and sex, were evaluated and submitted to algometry for PT and for visual analog scale (VAS) levels with 3 kgf at the insertion of the calcaneal tendon by two different evaluators. Inter-observer reproducibility was assessed through the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Sensitivity and specificity calculations of PT and of VAS were calculated and plotted on a receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: The lowest ICC found was 0.788. With regard to the diagnosis through PT , the 4.08-kgf value showed the best relation between sensitivity and specificity (92.5% and 92.5%, respectively). Algometry values lower than 4.08 were considered positive for disease. For the diagnosis of AIT through VAS with 3 kgf, the value of 2.98 was estabilished (sensitivity of 92.5% and specificity of 97.5%). CONCLUSION: Algometry was shown to be a simple and reliable method for diagnosing AIT. Values of PT less than 4.08 kgf were found to be predictors of the disease.

Interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the patella (kneecap) account for around 1% of all human fractures. The treatment of these fractures can be surgical or conservative (such as immobilisation with a cast or brace). There are many different surgical and conservative interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions (surgical and conservative) for treating fractures of the patella in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2020, Issue 1), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, trial registers and references lists of articles to January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that evaluated any surgical or conservative intervention for treating adults with fractures of the patella. The primary outcomes were patient-rated knee function, knee pain and major adverse outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected eligible trials, assessed risk of bias and cross-checked data extraction. Where appropriate, we pooled results of comparable trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 small trials involving 564 adults (aged 16 to 76 years) with patella fractures. There were 340 men and 212 women; the gender of 12 participants was not reported. Seven trials were conducted in China and one each in Finland, Mexico, Pakistan and Turkey. All 11 trials compared different surgical interventions for patella fractures. All trials had design flaws, such as lack of assessor blinding, which put them at high risk of bias, potentially limiting the reliability of their findings. No trial reported on health-related quality of life, return to previous activity or cosmetic appearance. The trials tested one of seven comparisons. In the following, we report those of the main outcomes for which evidence was available for the three most important comparisons. Four trials (174 participants) compared percutaneous osteosynthesis versus open surgery. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the findings of no clinically important difference between the two interventions in patient-rated knee function at 12 months (1 study, 50 participants) or in knee pain at intermediate-term follow-up at eight weeks to three months. Furthermore, very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain whether, compared with open surgery, percutaneous fixation surgery reduces the incidence of major adverse outcomes, such as loss of reduction and hardware complications, or results in better observer-rated knee function scores. Two trials (112 participants) compared cable pin system (open or percutaneous surgery) versus tension band technique. The very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the findings at one year in favour of the cable pin system of slightly better patient-rated knee function, fewer adverse events and slightly better observer-rated measures of knee function. There was very low-quality evidence of little clinically important between-group difference in knee pain at three months. Very low-quality evidence from two small trials (47 participants) means that we are uncertain of the findings of little difference between biodegradable versus metallic implants at two-year follow-up in the numbers of participants with occasional knee pain, incurring adverse events or with reduced knee motion. There was very low-quality and incomplete evidence from single trials for four other comparisons. This means we are uncertain of the results of one trial (28 participants) that compared patellectomy with advancement of vastus medialis obliquus surgery with simple patellectomy; of one quasi-RCT (56 participants) that compared a new intraoperative reduction technique compared with a standard technique; of one quasi-RCT (65 participants) that compared a modified tension band technique versus the conventional AO tension band wiring (TBW) technique; and of one trial (57 participants) that compared adjustable patella claws and absorbable suture versus Kirschner wire tension band. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence from nine RCTs and two quasi-RCTs on the relative effects of different surgical interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults. There is no evidence from trials evaluating the relative effects of surgical versus conservative treatment or different types of conservative interventions. Given the very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether methods of percutaneous osteosynthesis give better results than conventional open surgery; whether cable pin system (open or percutaneous surgery) gives better results than the tension band technique; and whether biodegradable implants are better than metallic implants for displaced patellar fractures. Further randomised trials are needed, but, to optimise research effort, these should be preceded by research that aims to identify priority questions.

How one treats lateral epicondylitis - a survey among Brazilian orthopedists.

BACKGROUND: Lateral epicondylitis (LE), also known as tennis elbow, is the most common painful elbow condition. It affects approximately 1-3% of adults. There are various possible treatments described in the literature, but evidence to support a gold standard management protocol is lacking. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate how Brazilian orthopaedists diagnose and treat lateral epicondylitis and compare these results with the available evidence. METHODS: This is an observational, analytical, cross-sectional study. A questionnaire was prepared to obtain information from the participants with eight specific questions (2 on diagnosis and 6 on treatment). These questions were answered voluntarily by participants at 3 major congresses of orthopaedists in Brazil in 2018. The results were analysed in accordance with the overall number of responses and were evaluated among groups according to subspecialty. RESULTS: We obtained a total of 501 questionnaires. Of these, 33 were excluded. The mean age was 38.67 years. The majority of respondents (91%) were male. We obtained 26.7% from specialists in hand surgery (Hand group), 36.5% from subspecialists in shoulder and elbow (Shoulder and Elbow group), and 36.8% from generalists in orthopaedics or from other subspecialties (General Orthopaedists group). For diagnosis, 24.4% did not initially request any imaging method. The most requested exam was ultrasonography (54.9%). The most prominent indication for initial treatment was physical therapy. For refractory cases, 78.3% of the respondents preferred doing a local infiltration. The most commonly used substance for local infiltrations was corticosteroids (89.6%). With respect to the surgical treatment option, 75.8% of those who recommend it prefer open techniques, and 24.2% prefer arthroscopic treatment. Of the total respondents, 12.8% did not recommend surgical treatment for LE. CONCLUSION: Among Brazilian orthopaedists, the Cozen test is most frequently chosen, and ultrasound is the most commonly used imaging tool. Nonsurgically, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) plus physiotherapy is the most popular initial therapy, and corticosteroids are the most popular type of infiltration agent. Most surgeons recommended surgery after 6 months of nonsurgical treatment, and 75.8% preferred the open technique.

Nonsurgical Treatment for Symptomatic Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Local Corticosteroid Injection Versus Night Orthosis.

PURPOSE: For carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), local corticosteroid injection (corticosteroid), and/or wrist immobilization with night orthosis (orthosis) are commonly prescribed and are supported by strong evidence. The aim of this study was to compare orthosis versus corticosteroid for patients with CTS. METHODS: A CTS diagnosis was made clinically and supported by electrodiagnostic study. Patients were randomly allocated to either orthosis or corticosteroid. Clinical assessments were performed before the intervention, within the first week of the intervention, and 1, 3, and 6 months after the intervention. Primary outcomes were improvement in nocturnal paresthesia and Boston-Levine questionnaire (BLQ) score. Secondary outcomes were pain assessed by visual analog scale and complications. RESULTS: Of 100 patients enrolled in the study, 95 completed the planned follow-up (45 in the orthosis arm and 50 in the corticosteroid arm). Corticosteroid injections were superior to orthosis in remission of nocturnal paresthesia (remission rates at 1 month, 84.6% versus 43.83%; 3 months, 71.1% versus 40.4%; and 6 months, 80.3% versus 28.8%). The BLQ scores (functional and symptom subscales) were also more favorable for corticosteroid at 1, 3, and 6 months (minimal clinically important differences for Function > 0.5 and Symptom > 0.16). Pain scores were lower and favored the corticosteroid group. There were no complications in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Both options are effective in the short term. Corticosteroid is superior to orthosis for improving CTS-related nocturnal paresthesia, BLQ scores, and pain. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic I.

Supraspinatus tears: predictability of magnetic resonance imaging findings based on clinical examination.

BACKGROUND: The shoulder physical examination is frequently performed to diagnose rotator cuff tears in clinical practice; however, there is insufficient evidence on which physical tests are efficient for shoulder impingements in primary care settings. The purposes of this study were (1) to analyze the accuracy of 8 clinical tests to diagnose supraspinatus tendon lesions and investigate whether the combination of these tests can improve the diagnostic values; (2) to assess which are the best positivity criteria for shoulder maneuvers-pain and/or weakness; and (3) to investigate the ability of these tests to distinguish between partial- and full-thickness tears. METHODS: A total of 733 consecutive patients were prospectively evaluated by 4 shoulder surgeons in this multicenter diagnostic study from May 2017 to December 2018, and 8 clinical tests (empty-can, full-can test, drop arm, painful arc, Neer sign, Hawkins test, Patte test, and resisted external rotation) were compared with magnetic resonance imaging performed by blinded radiologists. We assessed the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for all tests. RESULTS: For overall supraspinatus tears, the empty-can test showed the highest sensitivity (0.81), the Patte test (positive for pain and weakness) and the drop-arm test showed the highest specificity (0.99 and 0.98, respectively), and the best combination was the Neer sign and the drop-arm test (DOR, 12.92). The positivity criteria for pain associated with weakness showed the highest performance, with DORs of 16.94 for the Patte test and 10.45 for the empty-can test. The Patte test and resisted external rotation, positive for pain and weakness, showed the highest ability to distinguish between full- and partial-thickness tears (DOR, 5.69 and 5.35, respectively). The shoulder maneuvers showed low negative predictive values; the highest value (0.58) was found with the empty-can test. CONCLUSIONS: (1) The clinical tests demonstrated excellent diagnostic values; the empty-can test had the highest sensitivity, whereas the drop-arm test and the Patte test had the highest specificity; and the best combination for detecting supraspinatus tears was the Neer sign and the drop-arm test. On the other hand, the physical examination findings showed limited values to rule out tears. (2) The best positivity criterion for shoulder maneuvers was pain associated with weakness. (3) The Patte test and resisted external rotation showed the highest ability to distinguish between full- and partial-thickness tears.

Crossed versus lateral K-wire fixation of supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Supracondylar fractures of the humerus are common in children. Whether fixation should be performed with crossed or lateral wires remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate both techniques in terms of the function of the elbow and the risk of neurologic injury and loss of reduction. We also assessed the quality of the evidence currently available. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) databases, as well as ongoing clinical trial databases, were searched until March 2020. The main outcomes were function, measured by the Flynn criteria, and complications (neurologic lesions and loss of reduction). A meta-analysis was conducted using relative risk (RR) analysis for dichotomous variables and difference in means for continuous variables. Heterogeneity was tested using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Twelve trials, with a total of 930 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Both groups (crossed-wire and lateral-wire fixation) presented satisfactory functional results, with no difference between them (RR, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.02; P = .44). Patients undergoing crossed-wire fixation had a higher risk of iatrogenic neurologic injury (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.99; P = .05). The crossed group showed greater fixation stability, with a lower incidence of loss of fracture reduction (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.04-1.85; P = .03). The GRADEpro GDT (Guideline Development Tool) showed that the quality of evidence of the evaluated outcomes was low or very low. CONCLUSION: There is evidence of very low quality that fixation with lateral wires is safer regarding iatrogenic nerve lesions whereas fixation with crossed wires is more effective at maintaining fracture reduction.

Botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of lower limb spasticity in children with cerebral palsy.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common cause of physical disabilities in children in high-income countries. Spasticity is the most common motor disturbance in CP. Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) is considered the first-line treatment for focal spasticity in people with CP. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of BoNT-A compared to other treatments used in the management of lower limb spasticity in children with CP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, four other databases, and two trial registers in October 2018. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews and contacted experts in the field. We did not apply any date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of children with CP, aged between birth and 19 years, treated with BoNT-A injections in the lower limb muscles compared to other interventions. The primary outcomes were gait analysis and function. The secondary outcomes were joint range of motion, quality of life, satisfaction, spasticity, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE. A third review author arbitrated in case of disagreements. We conducted meta-analyses of available data whenever possible, analysing dichotomous data with risk ratios (RR), and continuous data with mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We considered a 5% significance level for all analyses.Whenever possible, we analysed outcomes at the time points at which they were assessed: short term (2 to 8 weeks); medium term (12 to 16 weeks); and long term (> 24 weeks). MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 randomised controlled trials assessing 1508 participants. Most studies included ambulatory patients with more than one motor type of CP, and with a mean age of between three and seven years. There was a slight predominance of males.Studies compared BoNT-A in the lower limb muscles to usual care or physiotherapy (14 studies), placebo or sham (12 studies), serial casting (4 studies), or orthoses (1 study).We rated studies as at high or unclear risk of bias mainly due to random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment.BoNT-A versus usual care or physiotherapyBoNT-A might improve overall gait scores at medium-term follow-up (MD 2.80, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.05; 1 study, 40 children; very low-quality evidence) and is moderately effective at improving function at short-term (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95; 2 studies, 123 children) and medium-term (SMD 1.04, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 4 studies, 191 children) follow-up (all very low-quality evidence).BoNT-A improves ankle range of motion, satisfaction, and ankle plantarflexors spasticity at one or more time points (very low-quality evidence).The proportion of adverse events in the BoNT-A group was 0.37 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.66; I2 = 95%; very low-quality evidence). No adverse events were reported in the control group.BoNT-A versus placebo or shamBoNT-A improves overall gait scores at short-term (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.37, P = 0.006; 4 studies, 261 assessments) and medium-term (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.74, P < 0.001; 3 studies, 248 assessments) follow-up, and may improve peak ankle dorsiflexion in stance (MD 15.90 degrees, 95% CI 4.87 to 26.93, P = 0.005; 1 study, 19 children) and in swing (MD 10.20 degrees, 95% CI 4.01 to 16.39, P = 0.001; 1 study, 19 children) at short-term follow-up (all moderate-quality evidence).BoNT-A is not more effective than placebo or sham at improving function at short-term (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.83, P = 0.42; 4 studies, 305 children) or long-term (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.35, P = 0.76; 2 studies, 91 children) follow-up, but has a small positive effect at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.49, P = 0.01; 5 studies, 327 children) (all moderate-quality evidence).BoNT-A improves passive ankle range of motion, satisfaction, and ankle plantarflexors spasticity at one or more time points (moderate-quality evidence).There was no difference between groups in the rate of adverse events at short-term follow-up (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.93, P = 0.21; 12 studies, 918 children; moderate-quality evidence).BoNT-A versus serial castingThere was no difference between groups for overall gait scores at short-term (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.66 to 1.66); medium-term (MD 0.65, 95% CI -1.21 to 2.51); or long-term (MD 0.46, 95% CI -1.33 to 2.25) follow-up in one study with 18 children (moderate-quality evidence).BoNT-A improved instrumented gait analysis only in terms of ankle dorsiflexion at initial contact (MD 6.59 degrees, 95% CI 1.39 to 11.78, P = 0.01; 2 studies, 47 children). There was no difference between groups for peak ankle dorsiflexion in stance and swing, and gait speed at any time point (moderate- and low-quality evidence).BoNT-A is not more effective than serial casting at improving function, ankle range of motion, and spasticity at any time point (moderate- and low-quality evidence).BoNT-A is not associated with a higher risk of adverse events than serial casting (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.03 to 11.03; 3 studies, 64 children; low-quality evidence).BoNT-A versus orthosesThere was no difference between groups for function at medium-term follow-up (MD 11.14, 95% CI -0.05 to 22.33; 1 study, 43 children), but BoNT-A is more effective than orthoses at improving hip range of motion and hip adductors spasticity (all very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the evidence was low or very low for most of the outcomes analysed. We found limited evidence that BoNT-A is more effective than placebo or a non-placebo control at improving gait, joint range of motion, satisfaction, and lower limb spasticity in children with CP, whereas the results for function were contradictory. The rate of adverse events with BoNT-A is similar to placebo. BoNT-A is not more effective than ankle serial casting to treat ankle contractures for any of the assessed outcomes, but is more effective than orthotics at improving range of motion and spasticity.

Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating acromioclavicular dislocation of the shoulder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint is one of the most common shoulder injuries in a sport-active population. The question of whether surgery should be used remains controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of surgical versus conservative (non-surgical) interventions for treating acromioclavicular dislocations in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (to June 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to June 2019), Embase (1980 to June 2019), and LILACS (1982 to June 2019), trial registries, and reference lists of articles. There were no restrictions based on language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared surgical with conservative treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently performed study screening and selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five randomised trials and one quasi-randomised trial. The included trials involved 357 mainly young adults, the majority of whom were male, with acute acromioclavicular dislocation. The strength of the findings in all studies was limited due to design features, invariably lack of blinding, that carry a high risk of bias. Fixation of the acromioclavicular joint using hook plates, tunnelled suspension devices, coracoclavicular screws, acromioclavicular pins, or (usually threaded) wires was compared with supporting the arm in a sling or similar device. After surgery, the arm was also supported in a sling or similar device in all trials. Where described in the trials, both groups had exercise-based rehabilitation. We downgraded the evidence for all outcomes at least two levels, invariably for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision.Low-quality evidence from two studies showed no evidence of a difference between groups in shoulder function at one year, assessed using the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH) (0 (best function) to 100 (worst function)): mean difference (MD) 0.73 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.70 to 4.16; 112 participants. These results were consistent with other measures of function at one-year or longer follow-up, including non-validated outcome scores reported by three studies. There is low-quality evidence that function at six weeks may be better after conservative treatment, indicating an earlier recovery. Very low-quality evidence from one trial found no difference between groups in participants reporting pain at one year: risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.19; 79 participants. There is very low-quality evidence that surgery may not reduce the risk of treatment failure, usually resulting in non-routine secondary surgery: 14/168 versus 15/174; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.94; 342 participants, 6 studies. The main source of treatment failure was complications related to surgical implants in the surgery group and persistent symptoms, mainly discomfort, due to the acromioclavicular dislocation in the conservatively treated group.There is low-quality evidence from two studies that there may be little or no difference between groups in the return to former activities (sports or work) at one year: 57/67 versus 62/70; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10; 137 participants, 2 studies. Low-quality but consistent evidence from four studies indicated an earlier recovery in conservatively treated participants compared with those treated with surgery. There is low-quality evidence of no clinically important difference between groups at one year in quality of life scores, measured using the 36-item or 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36 or SF-12) (0-to-100 scale, where 100 is best score), in either the physical component (MD -0.63, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.37; 122 participants, 2 studies) or mental component (MD 0.47 points, 95% CI -1.51 to 2.44; 122 participants). There is very low-quality and clinically heterogenous evidence of a greater risk of an adverse event after surgery: 45/168 versus 16/174; RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.82; 342 participants, 6 studies; I2 = 48%. Common adverse outcomes were hardware complications or discomfort (18.5%) and infection (8.7%) in the surgery group and persistent symptoms (7.1%), mainly discomfort, in the conservatively treated group. The majority of surgical complications occurred in older studies testing now-outdated devices known for their high risk of complications. The very low-quality evidence from one study (70 participants) means that we are uncertain whether there is a between-group difference in patient dissatisfaction with cosmetic results.It is notable that the evidence for function, return to former activities, and quality of life came from the two most recently conducted studies, which tested currently used devices and interventions in clearly defined participant populations that represented the commonly perceived population for which there is uncertainty over the use of surgery. There were insufficient data to conduct subgroup analysis relating to type of injury and whether surgery involved ligament reconstruction or not. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence that surgical treatment has no additional benefits in terms of function, return to former activities, and quality of life at one year compared with conservative treatment. There is, however, low-quality evidence that people treated conservatively had improved function at six weeks compared with surgical management. There is very low-quality evidence of little difference between the two treatments in pain at one year, treatment failure usually resulting in secondary surgery, or patient satisfaction with cosmetic result. Although surgery may result in more people sustaining adverse events, this varied between the trials, being more common in techniques such as K-wire fixation that are rarely used today. There remains a need to consider the balance of risks between the individual outcomes: for example, surgical adverse events, including wound infection or dehiscence and hardware complication, against risk of adverse events that may be more commonly associated with conservative treatment such as persistent symptoms or discomfort, or both.There is a need for sufficiently powered, good-quality, well-reported randomised trials of currently used surgical interventions versus conservative treatment for well-defined injuries.

Surgery for trigger finger.

BACKGROUND: Trigger finger is a common clinical disorder, characterised by pain and catching as the patient flexes and extends digits because of disproportion between the diameter of flexor tendons and the A1 pulley. The treatment approach may include non-surgical or surgical treatments. Currently there is no consensus about the best surgical treatment approach (open, percutaneous or endoscopic approaches). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different methods of surgical treatment for trigger finger (open, percutaneous or endoscopic approaches) in adults at any stage of the disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS up to August 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed adults with trigger finger and compared any type of surgical treatment with each other or with any other non-surgical intervention. The major outcomes were the resolution of trigger finger, pain, hand function, participant-reported treatment success or satisfaction, recurrence of triggering, adverse events and neurovascular injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the trial reports, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes calculated risk ratios (RRs), and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When possible, the data were pooled into meta-analysis using the random-effects model. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen trials were included, totalling 1260 participants, with 1361 trigger fingers. The age of participants included in the studies ranged from 16 to 88 years; and the majority of participants were women (approximately 70%). The average duration of symptoms ranged from three to 15 months, and the follow-up after the procedure ranged from eight weeks to 23 months.The studies reported nine types of comparisons: open surgery versus steroid injections (two studies); percutaneous surgery versus steroid injection (five studies); open surgery versus steroid injection plus ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid injection (one study); percutaneous surgery plus steroid injection versus steroid injection (one study); percutaneous surgery versus open surgery (five studies); endoscopic surgery versus open surgery (one study); and three comparisons of types of incision for open surgery (transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease, transverse incision of the skin about 2-3 mm distally from distal palmar crease, and longitudinal incision of the skin) (one study).Most studies had significant methodological flaws and were considered at high or unclear risk of selection bias, performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias. The primary comparison was open surgery versus steroid injections, because open surgery is the oldest and the most widely used treatment method and considered as standard surgery, whereas steroid injection is the least invasive control treatment method as reported in the studies in this review and is often used as first-line treatment in clinical practice.Compared with steroid injection, there was low-quality evidence that open surgery provides benefits with respect to less triggering recurrence, although it has the disadvantage of being more painful. Evidence was downgraded due to study design flaws and imprecision.Based on two trials (270 participants) from six up to 12 months, 50/130 (or 385 per 1000) individuals had recurrence of trigger finger in the steroid injection group compared with 8/140 (or 65 per 1000; range 35 to 127) in the open surgery group, RR 0.17 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.33), for an absolute risk difference that 29% fewer people had recurrence of symptoms with open surgery (60% fewer to 3% more individuals); relative change translates to improvement of 83% in the open surgery group (67% to 91% better).At one week, 9/49 (184 per 1000) people had pain on the palm of the hand in the steroid injection group compared with 38/56 (or 678 per 1000; ranging from 366 to 1000) in the open surgery group, RR 3.69 (95% CI 1.99 to 6.85), for an absolute risk difference that 49% more had pain with open surgery (33% to 66% more); relative change translates to worsening of 269% (585% to 99% worse) (one trial, 105 participants).Because of very low quality evidence from two trials we are uncertain whether open surgery improve resolution of trigger finger in the follow-up at six to 12 months, when compared with steroid injection (131/140 observed in the open surgery group compared with 80/130 in the control group; RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.76); evidence was downgraded due to study design flaws, inconsistency and imprecision. Low-quality evidence from two trials and few event rates (270 participants) from six up to 12 months of follow-up, we are uncertain whether open surgery increased the risk of adverse events (incidence of infection, tendon injury, flare, cutaneous discomfort and fat necrosis) (18/140 observed in the open surgery group compared with 17/130 in the control group; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84) and neurovascular injury (9/140 observed in the open surgery group compared with 4/130 in the control group; RR 2.17, 95% CI 0.7 to 6.77). Twelve participants (8 versus 4) did not complete the follow-up, and it was considered that they did not have a positive outcome in the data analysis. We are uncertain whether open surgery was more effective than steroid injection in improving hand function or participant satisfaction as studies did not report these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence indicates that, compared with steroid injection, open surgical treatment in people with trigger finger, may result in a less recurrence rate from six up to 12 months following the treatment, although it increases the incidence of pain during the first follow-up week. We are uncertain about the effect of open surgery with regard to the resolution rate in follow-up at six to 12 months, compared with steroid injections, due high heterogeneity and few events occurred in the trials; we are uncertain too about the risk of adverse events and neurovascular injury because of a few events occurred in the studies. Hand function or participant satisfaction were not reported.

Effectiveness of ultrasonography and nerve conduction studies in the diagnosing of carpal tunnel syndrome: clinical trial on accuracy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of two diagnostic tests routinely used for diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS)-ultrasonography (US) and nerve conduction studies (NCS)-by comparing their accuracy based on surgical results, with the remission of paresthesia as the reference standard. METHODS: We enrolled 115 patients, all of the female gender with a high probability of a clinical diagnosis of CTS. All patients underwent US and NCS for a diagnosis and subsequent surgical treatment. As a primary outcome, the accuracy of the US and NCS diagnoses was measured by comparing their diagnoses compared with those determined by the surgical outcomes. Their accuracy was secondarily evaluated based on before and after scores of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ). RESULTS: Overall, 104 patients (90.4%) were diagnosed with CTS by the surgical reference standard, 97 (84.3%) by NCS, and 90 (78.3%) by US. The concordance of NCS and surgical treatment (p < 0.001; kappa = 0.648) was superior to that of US and surgical treatment (p < 0.001; kappa = 0.423). The sensitivity and specificity of US and NCS were similar (p = 1.000 and p = 0.152, respectively: McNemar's test). The BCTQ scores were lower after surgery in patients diagnosed by both US and NCS (p < 0.001and p < 0.001, respectively: analysis of variance). CONCLUSIONS: US and NCS effectively diagnosed CTS with good sensitivity but were not effective enough to rule out a suspicion of CTS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at September, 10 th, 2015, and the registration number was NCT02553811 .

Above-versus below-elbow casting for conservative treatment of distal radius fractures: a randomized controlled trial and study protocol.

BACKGROUND: A variety of cast options are available for the non-surgical treatment of distal radius fractures (DRF) in adults. However, the literature is inconclusive regarding the need to immobilize the elbow joint after reduction in order to prevent rotation of the forearm in order to maintain the reduction of DRF. This study aimed to evaluate the best method of immobilization between above-elbow (AE) and below-elbow (BE) cast groups at the end of six-month follow-up. METHODS: This is a randomized clinical trial with parallel groups and a blinded evaluator. There are two non-surgical interventions: AE and BE. Patients will be randomly assigned. A hundred twenty eight consecutive adult patients with acute (up to 7 days) displaced DRF of type A2, A3, C1, C2 or C3 by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) classification will be included. The primary outcome will be the maintenance of reduction by evaluation of radiographic parameters and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (DASH). Secondary outcomes include function measured by Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), pain measured by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), objective functional evaluation (goniometry and dynamometry) and rate of complications. Evaluations will be performed at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24 weeks. For the Student's t-test, a difference of 10 points in DASH score, with 95% confidence interval, a statistical power of 95%, and 20% sampling error. We consider an extra 10% for balancing follow up losses results in 64 patients per group. DISCUSSION: Results from this study protocol will help to define the need for elbow immobilization in maintenance of reduction, as well as functional performance of below elbow cast versus above elbow cast immobilization during the immobilization period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03126175 ( http://clinicaltrials.gov ). April 24, 2017.

One-incision versus two-incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adults.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are serious knee injuries that are frequently treated surgically in the form of arthroscopically assisted reconstruction with grafts from the patella or hamstrings tendons. We reviewed the evidence for the choice of arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction technique in terms of whether it should involve one incision (femoral tunnel drilled from inside the knee joint under arthroscopic visualisation) or two incisions (femoral tunnel drilled from outside to inside the knee joint). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of one-incision versus two-incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, reference lists, and conference abstracts. The date of the search was 16 August 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating one-incision versus two-incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched and selected studies, and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the eligible studies. We undertook limited pooling of data using the fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (four randomised and one quasi-randomised) evaluating a total of 320 participants who were mainly in their 20s. All participants underwent ACL reconstruction with patella tendon grafts. All five included trials were at a high risk of bias, particularly performance bias. Based on these limitations and the insufficiency of the available data resulting in imprecision of effect estimates, we judged the quality of the evidence as very low for all outcomes. This means that we are uncertain of the findings of the review.We found very low-quality evidence of no clinically important differences between the two techniques in self reported knee function, measured using the Lysholm knee score (scale 0 to 100: best outcome), at short-term (3 months) (mean difference (MD) 2.73 favours one-incision technique, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.70 to 8.15; 79 participants, 2 studies), intermediate-term (12 months) (MD -3.68 favours two-incision technique, 95% CI -6.61 to -0.75; 79 participants, 2 studies), and long-term follow-up. The data available for long-term follow-up (2 to 5 years) was expressed in terms of the numbers of participants with excellent Lysholm scores (90 points or more); we found no difference between the two groups (42/45 versus 36/40; risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18; 1 study). There were no data for quality of life measures or for overall numbers of participants incurring an adverse event. We found very low-quality evidence of little between-group differences in individual adverse events such as infection, knee stiffness, reoperation, and graft failure.We found very low-quality evidence from one study (59 participants) of little difference between the two groups in activity levels measured using Tegner scores (scale 0 to 10: highest sport activity) at two years (MD -0.80 favours two-incision technique, 95% CI -1.90 to 0.30). There was very low-quality evidence from four studies of minimal between-group difference in the number of participants with normal or nearly normal objectively measured knee function (International Knee Documentation Committee objective assessment grading) at intermediate follow-up (means 12 to 28 months): 56/78 versus 63/89; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21; 167 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The very low-quality and often absent evidence means that we are uncertain whether one-incision arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction techniques yield better, worse, or equivalent results compared with two-incision techniques in terms of short-, intermediate-, or long-term subjective function, quality of life, adverse outcomes, activity levels, and objectively rated knee function. The evidence was available only for single-bundle ACL reconstruction using patella tendon grafts.When considering priorities for high-quality randomised trials on techniques for ACL reconstruction, it is important to note the insufficiency of the evidence available to inform this key comparison.

Surgical interventions (microfracture, drilling, mosaicplasty, and allograft transplantation) for treating isolated cartilage defects of the knee in adults.

BACKGROUND: Cartilage defects of the knee are often debilitating and predispose to osteoarthritis. Microfracture, drilling, mosaicplasty, and allograft transplantation are four surgical treatment options that are increasingly performed worldwide. We set out to examine the relative effects of these different methods. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative effects (benefits and harms) of different surgical interventions (microfracture, drilling, mosaicplasty, and allograft transplantation) for treating isolated cartilage defects of the knee in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, LILACS, trial registers and conference proceedings up to February 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any randomised or quasi-randomised trials that evaluated surgical interventions (microfracture, drilling, mosaicplasty, and allograft transplantation) for treating isolated cartilage defects of the knee in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Intervention effects were assessed using risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Data were pooled using the fixed-effect model, where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included three randomised controlled trials comparing mosaicplasty versus microfracture for isolated cartilage defects in adults. Two trials were single-centre trials and one involved three centres. These small trials reported results for a total of 133 participants, of whom 79 (59%) were male. Mean participant age in the three trials ranged from 24.4 years to 32.3 years. All studies included grade 3 or 4 cartilage lesions (International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) classification). The defect area ranged from 1.0 cm² to 6.0 cm²; the mean area in all three trials was 2.8 cm². No trials of allograft transplantation or drilling were identified.All trials were judged as being at high or unclear risk of performance and reporting bias. We judged that the quality of evidence was very low for all outcomes. For individual outcomes, we downgraded the quality of evidence by one or two levels for risk of bias, one level for indirectness where there were data from a single-centre trial only, one or two levels for imprecision where there were wide confidence intervals and an insufficient number of events, and one level for inconsistency reflecting heterogeneity. This means that we are very uncertain about the estimates for all outcomes.There is very low quality evidence from one single-centre trial (57 participants), which included athletes only, that mosaicplasty resulted in higher patient-reported function scores (probably the IKDC 2000 subjective knee evaluation score) compared with microfracture (range 0 to 100; higher score = better function) at one year follow-up (MD 10.29 favouring mosaicplasty, 95% CI 7.87 to 12.71). Very low quality evidence from the same trial showed that this effect persisted in the long term at 10 years follow-up. However, there is very low quality evidence from the two other trials (72 participants) of little difference in patient-reported function, assessed via the Lysholm score (range 0 to 100; higher score = better function), between the two groups at long-term follow-up (MD -1.10 favouring microfracture, 95% CI -4.54 to 2.33). One trial (25 participants) provided very low quality evidence of no significant difference between the two groups in quality of life or pain at long-term follow-up. Pooled results for treatment failure - primarily symptom recurrence - reported at long-term follow-up (means ranging from 6.3 to 1.4 years) in the three trials (129 participants) favoured mosaicplasty (10/64 versus 20/65; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.90). Based on an illustrative risk of 379 treatment failures per 1000 patients treated with microfracture, there is very low quality evidence that 201 fewer patients (95% CI 38 to 288 fewer) would have treatment failure after mosaicplasty. All three trials reported activity scores but due to clear statistical and clinical heterogeneity, we did not pool the long term Tegner score results. There was very low quality evidence from one study (57 participants) of higher Tegner scores - indicating greater activity - at intermediate-term and long-term follow-up in the mosaicplasty group; however, the between-group difference may not be clinically important. The other two trials provided very low quality evidence of no significant difference between the two groups in activity scores. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence from randomised controlled trials on allograft transplantation or drilling. The very low quality evidence from RCTs comparing mosaicplasty with microfracture is insufficient to draw conclusions on the relative effects of these two interventions for treating isolated cartilage defects of the knee in adults. Of note is that treatment failure, with recurrence of symptoms, occurred with both procedures. Further research is needed to define the best surgical option for treating isolated cartilage defects. We suggest the greatest need is for multi-centre RCTs comparing reconstructive procedures (mosaicplasty versus allograft transplantation) for large osteochondral lesions and reparative procedures (microfracture versus drilling) for small chondral lesions.

Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws for graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are frequently treated with surgical reconstruction with grafts, frequently patella tendon or hamstrings. Interference screws are often used to secure the graft in bone tunnels in the femur and tibia. This review examines whether bioabsorbable interference screws give better results than metal interference screws when used for graft fixation in ACL reconstruction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws for graft fixation in ACL reconstruction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, trial registers and reference lists of articles. Date of search: January 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials comparing bioabsorbable with metallic interferences screws in ACL reconstruction. The main outcomes sought were subjective-rated knee function, failure of treatment, and activity level. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors selected eligible trials, independently assessed risk of bias, and cross-checked data. Data were pooled whenever relevant and possible. Requests for further information were sent to the original study authors. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials (11 randomised and one quasi-randomised) involving a total of 944 participants, and reporting follow-up results for 774. Participants in the 12 trials underwent ACL reconstruction with either hamstring tendon grafts (five trials) or patellar tendon grafts (seven trials). Trials participants were randomly allocated to bioabsorbable or metallic interference screws for graft fixation in both femur and tibia (seven trials); femur only (three trials); tibia only (one trial); location was not reported in the remaining trial. A variety of materials was used for the bioabsorbable screws, Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) being the most common. The metallic screws, where reported, were titanium.All trials were at high risk of bias, which invariably included performance bias. Seven trials were at high risk of attrition bias and eight at high risk of reporting bias. The quasi-randomised trial was assessed as being at high risk for selection bias. Based on these study limitations and insufficiency of the available data, we judged the quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low.The majority of the available data for patient-reported knee function was presented as Lysholm scores (0 to 100; higher scores = better function). There was very low quality but consistent evidence of no clinically important differences between the two groups in Lysholm scores at 12 months follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to 1.32; three trials, 168 participants); 24 months (MD 0.35, 95% CI -1.27 to 1.98; three trials, 113 participants) or five or more years follow-up (MD 1.23, 95% CI -2.00 to 4.47; two trials, 71 participants). This lack of between-group differences was also reported for Lysholm scores in several trials that did not provide sufficient data for pooling as well as for other self-reported knee function scores reported in several trials.Treatment failure was represented by the summed data for implant breakage during surgery and major postoperative complications (implant failure, graft rupture, symptomatic foreign body reactions, effusion and treated arthrofibrosis and related conditions) that were usually described in the trial reports as requiring further substantive treatment. There is very low-quality evidence of greater treatment failure in the bioabsorbable screw group (60/451 versus 29/434; risk ratio (RR) 1.94 favouring metallic screw fixation, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.93; 885 participants, 11 studies). In a population with an assumed risk (based on the median control group risk) of 56 participants per 1000 having treatment failure after metallic screw fixation, this equates to 53 more (95% CI 17 to 108 more) per 1000 participants having treatment failure after bioabsorbable screw fixation. All 16 intraoperative complications in the bioabsorbable screw group were implant breakages upon screw insertion. Treatment failure defined as postoperative complications only still favoured the metallic screw group but the 95% CI also included the potential for a greater risk of treatment failure after metallic screw fixation: 44/451 versus 29/434; RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.23. Based on the assumed risk of 56 participants per 1000 having postoperative treatment failure after metallic screw fixation, this equates to 25 more (95% CI 4 fewer and 69 more) per 1000 participants having this outcome after bioabsorbable screw fixation.There was very low-quality evidence of very similar activity levels in the two groups at 12 and 24 months follow-up measured via the Tegner score (0 to 10; higher scores = greater activity): 12 months (MD 0.08, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.55; 122 participants, two studies); 24 months (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.57; 72 participants, two studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-quality evidence of no difference in self-reported knee function and levels of activity between bioabsorbable and metallic interference screws for graft fixation in ACL reconstruction. There is very low-quality evidence that bioabsorbable screws may be associated with more overall treatment failures, including implant breakage during surgery. Further research does not appear to be a priority, but if undertaken, should also examine costs.

Interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the patella (kneecap) account for around 1% of all human fractures. The treatment of these fractures can be surgical or conservative (such as immobilisation with a cast or brace). There are many different surgical and conservative interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions (surgical and conservative) for treating fractures of the patella in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (2 May 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to April Week 4 2014), Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (2 May 2014), Embase (1980 to 2014 Week 17), LILACS (1982 to 2 May 2014), trial registers and references lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that evaluated any surgical or conservative intervention for treating adults with fractures of the patella were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes were patient-rated knee function and knee pain, and major adverse outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected eligible trials, assessed risk of bias and cross-checked data extraction. Where appropriate, results of comparable trials were pooled. MAIN RESULTS: We included five small trials involving 169 participants with patella fractures. Participant age ranged from 16 to 76 years. There were 68 females and 100 males; the gender of one participant was not reported. Two trials were conducted in China and one each in Finland, Mexico and Turkey.All five trials compared different surgical interventions. Two trials compared biodegradable versus metallic implants for treating displaced patella fractures; one trial compared patellectomy with advancement of vastus medialis obliquus versus simple patellectomy for treating comminuted patella fractures; and two trials compared percutaneous osteosynthesis (both procedures were 'novel' and one used a new device) versus open surgery for treating displaced patella fractures. All the trials had design flaws, such as lack of assessor blinding, which put them at high risk of bias, potentially limiting the reliability of their findings. No trial reported on health-related quality of life, return to previous activity or cosmetic appearance.Very low quality evidence from two trials (48 participants) comparing biodegradable versus metallic implants indicated little difference between the two interventions at two-year follow-up in the numbers of participants with occasional knee pain (1/23 versus 2/24), incurring adverse events (3/24 versus 1/24) or with reduced knee motion (2/23 versus 2/24). Neither trial reported patient-rated knee function scores. In one trial, as per routine practice, metallic implants were removed one year after surgery (four participants). The other trial did not report on this aspect.Very low quality evidence from one trial (28 participants) indicated that compared with simple patellectomy, patellectomy with advancement of vastus medialis obliquus surgery for treating comminuted patella fractures resulted in more participants with a 'good' result based on a subjectively rated score (12/12 versus 11/16; risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 2.01), fewer participants experiencing knee pain (5/12 versus 13/16; RR 3.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 9.60) and more participants with unlimited activity and no loss in quadriceps strength at four-year follow-up. The only adverse event reported was a patellar tendon subluxation in the simple patellectomy group.Neither trial comparing percutaneous osteosynthesis (using novel devices or methods) versus open surgery reported on patient-rated knee function scores. Very low quality evidence from two trials (93 participants) showed that percutaneous osteosynthesis improved knee pain measured using visual analogue scale (0 to 10 where 10 is worst pain) at one month (mean difference (MD) -2.24, 95% CI -2.80 to -1.68) and at up to three months (MD -1.87, 95% CI -2.45 to -1.29). This effect did not persist at six months (very low quality evidence from one trial). Very low quality evidence from the two trials showed significantly fewer participants with adverse events (loss of reduction, infection, hardware complications, delayed wound healing) after percutaneous surgery (8/47 versus 28/46; RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.55). Very low quality evidence from the two trials indicated better clinician-rated knee function scores after percutaneous fixation at two to three months and 12 months follow-up; however, the between-group difference was not clinically important at 24 months. Very low quality evidence showed a lower incidence of hardware removal in the percutaneous group at two years; however, the results in the two trials were heterogeneous and the reasons for removal were not given in detail. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence from RCTs about the relative effects of different surgical interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults. There is no evidence from RCTs evaluating the relative effects of surgical versus conservative treatment or different types of conservative interventions.Based on very low quality evidence, biodegradable implants seem to be no better than metallic implants for displaced patellar fractures; patellectomy with vastus medialis obliquus advancement may give better results than simple patellectomy for comminuted patellar fractures; and two novel methods of percutaneous osteosynthesis may give better results than conventional open surgery. However, until conclusive evidence becomes available, treatment options must be chosen on an individual patient basis, carefully considering the relative benefits and harms of each intervention and patient preferences. Further randomised trials are needed, but in order to optimise research effort, these should be preceded by research that aims to identify priority questions.

Does Combined Intra- and Extraarticular ACL Reconstruction Improve Function and Stability? A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: ACL reconstruction aims to restore knee function and stability; however, rotational stability may not be completely restored by use of standard intraarticular reconstruction alone. Although individual studies have not shown the superiority of combined ACL reconstruction compared with isolated intraarticular reconstruction in terms of function and stability, biomechanical principles suggest a combined approach may be helpful, therefore pooling (meta-analyzing) the available randomized clinical studies may be enlightening. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether combining extraarticular with intraarticular ACL reconstruction would lead to: (1) similar knee function measured by the IKDC evaluation, return-to-activity, and Tegner Lysholm scores, compared with isolated intraarticular reconstruction; (2) increased stability measured by pivot shift and instrumented Lachman examination; and (3) any differences in complications and adverse events? METHODS: To identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing combined intra- and extrarticular ACL reconstruction (combined reconstruction) with intraarticular ACL reconstruction only, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. The main outcomes we sought were patient function and stability and complications after ACL reconstruction. Of 386 identified studies, eight RCTs were included (n=682 participants; followup, 12-84 months; men to women ratio, 2.17:1) in our meta-analysis. Study quality (internal validity) was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool; in general, we found a moderate quality of evidence of the included studies. RESULTS: When functional outcomes were compared, we found no difference between patients who underwent intraarticular ACL reconstruction only and those who underwent combined reconstruction (IKDC, return-to-activity, and Tegner Lysholm scores). However, patients who underwent combined reconstruction were more likely to show improved stability based on the pivot shift test (risk ratio [RR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99; p=0.02) and Lachman test (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98; p=0.01). In addition, our meta-analysis found no difference between the two treatments in terms of general complications or adverse events (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.70-2.34; p=0.40) and the proportion of patients whose reconstructions failed (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 0.73-11.47; p=0.13). CONCLUSION: Combined intra- and extraarticular ACL reconstruction provided marginally improved knee stability and comparable failure rates but no difference in patient-reported functional outcomes scores. Complications and adverse events such as knee stiffness may be underreported and technical factors such as graft placement were difficult to evaluate. Future studies are needed to determine whether the small differences in additional stability warrant the potential morbidity of the additional extraarticular procedure and to determine long-term failure rates.

Conservative interventions for treating middle third clavicle fractures in adolescents and adults.

BACKGROUND: Clavicle (collarbone) fractures account for around 4% of all fractures; treatment of these fractures is usually non-surgical (conservative). Commonly used treatments are arm slings, strapping, figure-of-eight bandages and splints.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of different methods for conservative (non-operative) treatment for acute (treated soon after injury) middle third clavicle fractures in adolescents and adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE (from 1966), EMBASE (from 1980), LILACS (from 1982), trial registers, orthopaedic proceedings and reference lists of articles. We applied no language or publication restrictions. The date of the last search was 29 January 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials testing conservative interventions for treating adolescents and adults with acute middle third clavicle fractures. The primary outcomes were shoulder function or disability, pain and treatment failure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors selected eligible trials, independently assessed risk of bias and cross-checked data extraction. We calculated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous variables, and mean differences and 95% confidence intervals for continuous variables. There was no pooling of data. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials in this review with 354 participants. No new trials were included in this update.Very low quality evidence was available from two trials (234 participants) that compared the figure-of-eight bandage with an arm sling for treating acute middle third clavicle fractures. Both trials were underpowered and compromised by poor methodology. One trial found slightly higher pain levels in the bandage group at 15 days (mean difference 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 1.26; visual analogue scale: 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain)); and the other trial reported greater discomfort during bandage wear. There were no significant differences between the two interventions in functional or other outcomes reported for either trial.Moderate quality evidence was available from the third trial (120 participants), which evaluated therapeutic ultrasound. This trial was at low risk of any type of bias but was underpowered. The trial found no statistically significant difference between low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and placebo in the time to clinical fracture healing (mean difference -0.32 days, 95% CI -5.85 to 5.21 days), nor in any of the other reported outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence available from randomised controlled trials to determine which methods of conservative treatment are the most appropriate for acute middle third clavicle fractures in adolescents and adults. Further research is warranted.

Platelet-rich therapies for musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries.

BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich therapies are being used increasingly in the treatment of musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries such as ligament, muscle and tendon tears and tendinopathies. These therapies can be used as the principal treatment or as an augmentation procedure (application after surgical repair or reconstruction). Platelet-rich therapies are produced by centrifuging a quantity of the patient's own blood and extracting the active, platelet-rich, fraction. The platelet-rich fraction is applied to the injured tissue; for example, by injection. Platelets have the ability to produce several growth factors, so these therapies should enhance tissue healing. There is a need to assess whether this translates into clinical benefit. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of platelet-rich therapies for treating musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (25 March 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013 Issue 2), MEDLINE (1946 to March 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 Week 12) and LILACS (1982 to March 2012). We also searched trial registers (to Week 2 2013) and conference abstracts (2005 to March 2012). No language or publication restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared platelet-rich therapy with either placebo, autologous whole blood, dry needling or no platelet-rich therapy for people with acute or chronic musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Primary outcomes were functional status, pain and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed each study's risk of bias. Disagreement was resolved by discussion or by arbitration by a third author. We contacted trial authors for clarification of methods or missing data. Treatment effects were assessed using risk ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data, together with 95% confidence intervals. Where appropriate, data were pooled using the fixed-effect model for RR and MD, and the random-effects model for SMD. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included data from 19 small single centre trials (17 randomised and two quasi-randomised; 1088 participants) that compared platelet-rich therapy with placebo, autologous whole blood, dry needling or no platelet-rich therapy. These trials covered eight clinical conditions: rotator cuff tears (arthroscopic repair) (six trials); shoulder impingement syndrome surgery (one trial); elbow epicondylitis (three trials); anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (four trials), ACL reconstruction (donor graft site application) (two trials), patellar tendinopathy (one trial), Achilles tendinopathy (one trial) and acute Achilles rupture surgical repair (one trial). We also grouped trials into 'tendinopathies' where platelet-rich therapy (PRT) injections were the main treatment (five trials), and surgical augmentation procedures where PRT was applied during surgery (14 trials). Trial participants were mainly male, except in trials including rotator cuff tears, and elbow and Achilles tendinopathies.Three trials were judged as being at low risk of bias; the other 16 were at high or unclear risk of bias relating to selection, detection, attrition or selective reporting, or combinations of these. The methods of preparing platelet-rich plasma (PRP) varied and lacked standardisation and quantification of the PRP applied to the patient.We were able to pool data for our primary outcomes (function, pain, adverse events) for a maximum of 11 trials and 45% of participants. The evidence for all primary outcomes was judged as being of very low quality.Data assessing function in the short term (up to three months) were pooled from four trials that assessed PRT in three clinical conditions and used four different measures. These showed no significant difference between PRT and control (SMD 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.19 to 0.71; P value 0.26; I² = 51%; 162 participants; positive values favour PRT). Medium-term function data (at six months) were pooled from five trials that assessed PRT in five clinical conditions and used five different measures. These also showed no difference between groups (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.39; P value 0.72; I² = 50%; 151 participants). Long-term function data (at one year) were pooled from 10 trials that assessed PRT in five clinical conditions and used six different measures. These also showed no difference between groups (SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.57; P value 0.12; I² = 66%; 484 participants). Although the 95% confidence intervals indicate the possibility of a poorer outcome in the PRT group up to a moderate difference in favour of PRT at short- and long-term follow-up, these do not translate into clinically relevant differences.Data pooled from four trials that assessed PRT in three clinical conditions showed a small reduction in short-term pain in favour of PRT on a 10-point scale (MD -0.95, 95% CI -1.41 to -0.48; I² = 0%; 175 participants). The clinical significance of this result is marginal.Four trials reported adverse events; another seven trials reported an absence of adverse events. There was no difference between treatment groups in the numbers of participants with adverse effects (7/241 versus 5/245; RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.59; I² = 0%; 486 participants).In terms of individual conditions, we pooled heterogeneous data for long-term function from six trials of PRT application during rotator cuff tear surgery. This showed no statistically or clinically significant differences between the two groups (324 participants).The available evidence is insufficient to indicate whether the effects of PRT will differ importantly in individual clinical conditions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, and for the individual clinical conditions, there is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of PRT for treating musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Researchers contemplating RCTs should consider the coverage of currently ongoing trials when assessing the need for future RCTs on specific conditions. There is need for standardisation of PRP preparation methods.

Surgical approaches for cervical spine facet dislocations in adults.

BACKGROUND: The choice of surgical approach for the management of subaxial cervical spine facet dislocations is a controversial subject amongst spine surgeons. Reasons for this include differences in the technical familiarity and experience of surgeons with the different surgical approaches, and variable interpretation of image studies regarding the existence of a traumatic intervertebral disc herniation and of the neurological status of the patient. Moreover, since the approaches are dissimilar, important variations are likely in neurological, radiographical and clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects (benefits and harms) of the different surgical approaches used for treating adults with acute cervical spine facet dislocation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (9 May 2014), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014 Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to April Week 5 2014), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (8 May 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 Week 18), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (9 May 2014), trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists of articles to May 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared surgical approaches for the management of adults with acute cervical spine facet dislocations with and without spinal cord injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included one randomised and one quasi-randomised controlled trial involving a total of 94 participants and reporting results for a maximum of 84 participants. One trial included patients with spinal cord injuries and the other included patients without spinal cord injuries. Both trials compared anterior versus posterior surgical approaches. Both trials were at high risk of bias, including selection bias (one trial), performance bias (both trials) and attrition bias (one trial). Data were pooled for one outcome only: non-union. Reflecting also the imprecision of the results, the evidence was deemed to be of very low quality for all outcomes; which means that our level of uncertainty about the estimates is high.Neither trial found differences between the two approaches in neurological recovery or status, as shown in one study by small clinically insignificant differences in NASS (Northern American Spine Society) neurological scores (0 to 100: optimal score) at one year of follow-up: anterior mean score: 85.23 versus posterior mean score: 83.86; mean difference (MD) 1.37 favouring anterior approach, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.76 to 12.50; 33 participants; 1 study). The same trial found no relevant between-approach differences at one year in patient-reported quality of life measured using the 36-item Short Form Survey physical (MD -0.08, 95% CI -7.26 to 7.10) and mental component scores (MD 2.88, 95% CI -3.32 to 9.08). Neither trial found evidence of significant differences in long-term pain, or non-union (2/38 versus 2/46; risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 34.91). One trial found better sagittal and more 'normal' alignment after the anterior approach (MD -10.31 degrees favouring anterior approach, 95% CI -14.95 degrees to -5.67 degrees), while the other trial reported no significant differences in cervical alignment. There was insufficient evidence to indicate between-group differences in medical adverse events, rates of instrumentation failure and infection. One trial found that the several participants had voice and swallowing disorders after anterior approach surgery (11/20) versus none (0/22) in the posterior approach group: RR 25.19, 95% CI 1.58 to 401.58); all had recovered by three months. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low quality evidence from two trials indicated little difference in long-term neurological status, pain or patient-reported quality of life between anterior and posterior surgical approaches to the management of individuals with subaxial cervical spine facet dislocations. Sagittal alignment may be better achieved with the anterior approach. There was insufficient evidence available to indicate between-group differences in medical adverse events, rates of instrumentation failure and infection. The disorders of the voice and swallowing that occurred exclusively in the anterior approach group all resolved by three months. We are very uncertain about this evidence and thus we cannot say whether one approach is better than the other. There was no evidence available for other approaches. Further higher quality multicentre randomised trials are warranted.

Treatment of reducible unstable fractures of the distal radius: randomized clinical study comparing the locked volar plate and external fixator methods: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Various treatments are available for reducible unstable fractures of the distal radius, such as closed reduction combined with fixation by external fixator (EF), and rigid internal fixation using a locked volar plate (VP). Although there are studies comparing these methods, there is no conclusive evidence indicating which treatment is best. The hypothesis of this study is that surgical treatment with a VP is more effective than EF from the standpoint of functional outcome (patient-reported). METHODS/DESIGN: The study is randomized clinical trial with parallel groups and a blinded evaluator and involves the surgical interventions EF and VP. Patients will be randomly assigned (assignment ratio 1:1) using sealed opaque envelopes. This trial will include consecutive adult patients with an acute (up to 15 days) displaced, unstable fracture of the distal end of the radius of type A2, A3, C1, C2 or C3 by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen-Association for the Study of Internal Fixation classification and type II or type III by the IDEAL32 classification, without previous surgical treatments of the wrist. The surgical intervention assigned will be performed by three surgical specialists familiar with the techniques described. Evaluations will be performed at 2, and 8 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months, with the primary outcomes being measured by the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and measurement of pain (Visual Analog Pain Scale and digital algometer). Secondary outcomes will include radiographic parameters, objective functional evaluation (goniometry and dynamometry), and the rate of complications and method failure according to the intention-to-treat principle. Final postoperative evaluations (6 and 12 months) will be performed by independent blinded evaluators. For the Student's t-test, a difference of 10 points in the DASH score, with a 95% confidence interval, a statistical power of 80%, and 20% sampling error results in 36 patients per group. DISCUSSION: Results from this study protocol will improve the current evidence regarding to the surgical treatment these fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISCRTN09599740.