Background. Frozen Shoulder is a common condition which causes significant morbidity in people of working age. The 2 most popular forms of surgical treatment for this condition are Manipulation under Anaesthesia (MUA) or MUA plus Arthroscopic Capsular Release (ACR). Both treatment modalities are known to give good results, but no-one has compared the two to see which is better. Aim. To compare the outcome in patients with primary frozen shoulder, who are treated by either MUA or MUA plus ACR. Methods. 56 patients with primary frozen shoulder were treated by either MUA or MUA plus ACR. Each patient had their American Shoulder and Elbow Score (ASES), and their Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) measured pre- and post-operatively. Results. The patients who had MUA plus ACR had a mean ASES of 19.6 pre-operatively, 78.3 at 6 months, and a mean of 80.1 at 12 months. The mean OSS was 32.5 pre-operatively, 53.6 at 6 months and 53.8 at 12 months. The patients who had a MUA had a mean ASES of 28.7 pre-operatively, 57.9 at 6 months and 58 at 12 months. The mean OSS was 33 pre-operatively, 42.5 at 6 months and 48 at 12 months. Conclusions. Both treatments give good results; MUA plus ACR give significantly superior results at 6 to 12 months post-operatively. However, there is no significant difference beyond 12 months

Background – Frozen Shoulder is a common condition which causes significant morbidity in people of working age. The 2 most popular forms of surgical treatment for this condition are Manipulation under Anaesthesia (MUA) or MUA plus Arthroscopic Capsular Release (ACR). Both treatment modalities are known to give good results, but no-one has compared the 2 to see which is better. Aim – To compare the outcome in patients with primary frozen shoulder, who are treated by either MUA or MUA plus ACR. Method – 61 patients with primary frozen shoulder were treated by either MUA or MUA plus ACR. Each patient had their American Shoulder and Elbow Score (ASES), and their Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) measured pre and post-operatively. Results – The patients who had MUA plus ACR had a mean ASES of 24.8 preoperatively, 64 at 4 months, and a mean of 75.4 at 12 months. The mean OSS was 32.5 pre-operatively, 48.5 at 4 months and 53.4 at 12months. The patients who had a MUA had a mean ASES of 28.7 pre-operatively, 60.9 at 4months and 69.6 at 12months. The mean OSS was 33 preoperatively, 46.5 at 4 months and 50.9 at 12 months. Conclusions – Both treatments give good results. MUA plus ACR give superior numerical results at 6 to 12 months post-operatively, however, these figures did not reach statistical significance

Background Adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder is a painful condition that results in gradual loss of joint movement. Numerous treatment modalities have been utilised with variable benefits. Because of the risk of brachial plexus injury and fracture, manipulation under anaesthesia is considered with caution. Aim To determine the rate of manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) following primary distension arthrogram for adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder. Patients and Methods The case notes of 40 patients (42 shoulders) between 1998 to 2004 at Glenfield Hospital, Leicester under the care of one consultant with adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder treated with distension arthrogram by using intra-articular injection of local anaesthetic, corticosteroid, contrast media and air were reviewed. Results Capsular disruption into the subscapular bursa was demonstrated in all cases. 15 of 42 (36%) shoulders underwent MUA following distension arthrogram. The average period of pain prior to distension arthrogram for these patients was 42 weeks (range: 7–156). 35 of 40 (88%) patients were pain free following primary distension arthrogram. One patient experienced a vasovagal episode during the distension arthrogram. Conclusion Distension arthrogram can be used as a therapeutic procedure for achieving symptomatic pain relief in the early phase of adhesive capsulitis and decreasing the risk of MUA of the shoulder

The optimal timing of when to perform manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) for stiffness following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is unclear. This study aimed to identify the risk factors for MUA following primary TKA and whether performing an “early” MUA within 3 months results in a greater improvement in range of motion. Primary TKAs performed between January 2013 and December 2018 at three tertiary New Zealand hospitals were reviewed. International Classification of Diseases discharge coding was used to identify patients who underwent an MUA. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to identify patient and surgical risk factors for MUA. Pre- and post-MUA knee flexion angles were identified through manual review of operation notes. Multivariate linear regression was performed to compare the mean flexion angles pre- and post-MUA, as well as the mean gain in flexion, between patients undergoing “early” (<3 months) versus “late” MUA (>3 months). 7386 primary TKAs were analyzed in which 131 underwent subsequent MUA (1.8%). Patients aged <65 years were two times more likely to undergo MUA compared to patients aged ≥65 years (2.5% versus 1.3%, adjusted hazard ratio = 2.1, p<0.001). Gender, body mass index, patient comorbidities or a history of cancer were not associated with the risk of MUA. There was no difference in the final post-MUA flexion angle between patients who underwent early versus late MUA (104.7 versus 104.1 degrees, p = 0.819). However, patients who underwent early MUA had poorer pre-MUA flexion (72.3 versus 79.6 degrees, p = 0.012), and subsequently had a greater overall gain in flexion compared to patients who underwent late MUA (mean gain 33.1 versus 24.3 degrees, p<0.001). Younger age was the only patient risk factor for MUA. A greater overall gain in flexion was achieved in patients who underwent early MUA within 3 months

Introduction. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) helps restore range of motion. This study identifies MUA risk factors to support early interventions to improve functionality. Methods. Data was retrospectively reviewed in 2,925 primary TKAs from October 2013 through December 2015 from 13 orthopedic surgeons using hospital and private practice electronic medical records (EMR). Statistical analysis evaluated MUA and non-MUA groups, comparing demographic, operative, hospital-visit, and clinical factors. T-test, chi-square test, ANOVA and regression analysis were performed. Significance was set at p<0.05. Results. Of 2,925 TKAs, 208 MUAs were performed (7.1%) with no significant differences between groups in sex, BMI, or diabetes status. Mean age of the MUA group was 61.98 years old, and 66.89 years old in the non-MUA group (p<0.005). The ratio of MUA patients with high cholesterol was 3.37% (7/208), and 1.10% (30/2717) in the non-MUA group (p=0.014). The ratio of African-American patients in the MUA group was 6.73% (14/208), and 2.94% (80/2717) in the non- MUA group (p=0.003). Of cases with device data recorded in the EMR (n=1890), MUA incidence in patients receiving a cruciate-retaining (CR) device was 14.58% (50/343), and 9.57% (148/1547) in patients receiving a posterior-stabilized (PS) device (p=0.006). A CR-device patient was 52.35% more likely to undergo MUA than a PS-device patient (95% CI, 1.13–2.05). MUA rate by surgeon training was 6.7% for joint fellowship, 6.8% for general fellowship, and 12.0% for sports medicine fellowship (p=0.015). Further analysis showed that rate of CR-device use was 13.3% for joint-fellowship trained surgeons, 10.2% for general fellowship, and 74.7% for sports medicine fellowship (p<0.001). With the numbers available for this investigation, there were no significant differences found between groups in relation to surgeon, high-volume (>150 TKAs annually) or low-volume surgeons, length of stay, discharge disposition, or smoking status. Conclusion. MUA risk factors include a lower mean age, high cholesterol, African-American, surgeon fellowship training, and receiving a cruciate-retaining device

Introduction. Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty is a common occurrence. Despite its prevalence, little is known as to which patients are at risk for poor range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine the risk factors for manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. Using a single institution registry, 160 patients who underwent a manipulation under anesthesia after total knee arthroplasty between 2007 and 2013 were retrospectively evaluated. Each patient was 1:1 matched by age, gender and laterality to a control group of 160 patients who did not require MUA after TKA. Risk factors for MUA were assessed, and included medical co-morbidities, BMI, prior operations, and preoperative range of motion. Results. There were 160 patients in each group, 48 males and 112 females. Patients who required a MUA after TKA had a significantly higher percentage of overweight patients with a BMI >25 (88% vs 76%, p=0.01, Odds ratio=2.18), and previous surgery including arthroscopy (60% vs 33%, P < 0.0001, Odds ratio=3.12). Patients that underwent an MUA had a higher but not significant prevalence of depression and anxiety (22% vs. 16%, p=0.20, Odds Ratio=1.44) and diabetes (15% vs. 8%, p=0.058, Odds Ratio=2.0). Average ROM was 3–110° (Range −10–130°) and 6–102° (Range 0–140°) in the MUA and control groups respectively. In the MUA group, 29% of patients had pre-operative flexion less than 90 degrees pre-operatively compared to 3% in the control group (p=0.02, Odds Ratio=6.6). While the average preoperative range of motion did not differ between the groups, there were a larger percentage of patients with severe limitations in range of motion who ended up needing a MUA after TKA compared to controls. Conclusion. Patients with increased BMI, preoperative range of motion less than 90°, and a history of prior operations should be counseled on the increased risk of requiring a MUA after TKA

OBJECTIVE. Post TKR manipulation under anesthesia is required when post operatively patients don't achieve desired range of motion. The rates quoted in various western literature ranges from 1 to 2 %. A knee is considered to be stiff when the patient fails to achieve 60 degrees of flexion. The objective of the study was to find out the differentiating factor responsible for low rate of MUA in Indian post TKR patients as compared to Anglo-Saxon population. MATERIAL & METHODS. We studied 100 consecutive patients operated from January 2016. The following parameters of these 100 patients were recorded. Pre-op ROM. Age and Sex of the TKR patient. Duration of home physiotherapy. Post opROM. All patients received post operative physiotherapy at home every day for first 2 weeks, 3 times a week for next 2 weeks and then once a week for next two weeks. The implant used was Maxx Freedom knee (PS design). RESULTS. Of the 300 TKR patients 270 were females and 30 were males. The age range for male patients was 65 to 87 years with a mean of 73 years. The age range of female patients was 65 to 83 years with a mean of 71 years. The mean range of motion achieved was 121 degrees. Only one of our patient required manipulation under anesthesia.(0.333%). CONCLUSION. Our rate of MUA is totally different from that of reported from Western world. According to us home physiotherapy is the main differentiating factor responsible for this low rate. Hence we strongly advocate personalized home physiotherapy post TKR with constant feedback mechanism between the operating doctor and the treating physiotherapist

Introduction. Total knee arthroplasty is very successful although the clinical assessment and rated outcome does not always match the patients reported satisfaction. One reason for patient dissatisfaction is less than desired range of motion. Poor postoperative motion inhibits many functional activities and may create a perception of dysfunction. Early in the postoperative period when patients are having trouble regaining motion (usually 6–8 weeks), manipulation under anesthesia can be used to advance range of motion by manually lysing adhesions. Comorbidities have been used as predictors for outcome in total knee arthroplasty in population health studies. Likewise, predicting which patients are most susceptible to early postoperative stiffness/manipulation would be valuable for patient education and to predict outcome. Methods. Prospectively collected data was retrieved from the hospital's MARCQI database (Michigan Arthroplasty Collaborative Quality Initiative) for the years 2014–2018. There were 3098 primary total knees performed during the study period and 139 manipulations (4.44%). The registry specifically abstracts patients’ preoperative comorbidities, operative data, and 90-day postoperative complications. Results. There were 2118 Cruciate Retaining/Cruciate Stabilized knees (105 MUA), 801 Posterior Stabilized (33), and 41 Total Stabilized/Hinge (1), 2160 knees were cemented (91) and 799 uncemented (48). No differences were found between the manipulation and non-manipulation groups for gender, race, alcohol consumption, bleeding disorders, history of DVT or PE, Diabetes, or use of pre-op narcotics or anti-coagulents. Patients undergoing manipulation were younger (67.2 vs. 63.8, p= 0.00001), had a lower BMI (32.6 vs. 30.9 p= 0.0007), and were more likely to be non or former (quit) smokers. There were no differences noted for the constraint of the component (cr/ps), or whether the implants were cemented or uncemented (35% vs. 27%, p= 0.064). Conclusions. Understanding the risk for postoperative stiffness and the potential for manipulation is helpful in the preoperative period for patient education and outcome prediction. Assessing comorbidities and patient characteristics may help avoid the need for manipulations postoperatively. This patient cohort may be biased since the manipulations were not based on predetermined criteria. The cohort represents patients whose range of motion was poor enough to cause the surgeon to perform the procedure. The findings do however highlight a patient pool that was surprisingly at risk: younger, thinner, nonsmokers regardless the implant design or use of cement

Introduction. Arthrofibrosis remains a persistent complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Although manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) is an effective early treatment, the risks and value of this procedure beyond 3 months after TKA remain controversial. The purpose of this study was to examine the safety and efficacy of late MUAs for arthrofibrosis. Methods. From our institutional total joint registry, 82 TKAs (77 patients) who underwent MUA >3 months after primary (83%) or revision (17%) TKA were identified. Mean time to MUA was 7 months: 66% performed between 4–6 months, 18% between 7–12 months, 16% beyond 12 months. MUAs were coupled with arthroscopic assistance in 26% (12% limited lysis of adhesions, 13% formal arthroscopic debridement). Mean age was 61 years, 59% females, and mean BMI was 33kg/m. 2. Mean follow-up was 5 years. Results. No fractures, extensor mechanism disruptions, or other complications related to late MUA occurred. The mean ROM gained after MUA was 18° (76° to 94°, p<0.001). Substantial ROM gains (≥20°) occurred in 50%, while 21% made no gains or lost ROM after MUA. ROM gains ≥20° occurred in 54% of primary TKAs and 28% of revision TKAs. While ROM gains were higher when performed between 3–6 months (21°) compared to 6–12 months (13°) and >12 months (11°), these differences did not reach statistical significance (p=0.26). No differences in mean ROM gains were observed in MUAs performed with or without arthroscopic assistance (19° versus 15°, p=0.54). Kaplan Meier survivorship free of repeat MUA and revision TKA were 85% and 80% at 20 years, respectively. Conclusion. Late MUA, coupled with arthroscopic assistance in selected patients, was safe in a broad range of stiff primary and revision TKAs with no fractures or extensor disruptions occurring. While mean ROM improvements were modest, a substantial subset of patients achieved clinically important ROM gains ≥20°. Summary. Late MUA substantially improved ROM in a subset of patients with stiff TKAs and was done safely. In selected patients, arthroscopic lysis of adhesions or formal debridement aided the perceived safety and efficacy

Introduction. Arthrofibrosis following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a complex and multifactorial complication that may require manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). However, patient and surgical factors that potentially influence the development of knee stiffness following TKA are not fully understood. The purpose of this study was to identify patient and surgical factors that may influence arthrofibrosis following TKA by assessing a cohort of patient that underwent MUA and comparing them to a matched cohort of patients without arthrofibrosis. Methods. The joints registry of a university hospital was searched for patient that underwent MUA following primary TKA between 2004 and 2013. Demographic and surgical information was obtained from the electronic medical record including range of motion (ROM), comorbidities and timing of MUA. Patients who underwent MUA were then double-matched by baseline (prior to primary TKA) knee ROM to patients who underwent primary TKA without postoperative arthrofibrosis during the same time period. Results. Fifty-two patients (56 TKAs, 71% female, mean BMI 32.2kg/m2) underwent MUA after TKA during the study period. MUA was performed a mean of 13.6 weeks after primary TKA. Study patient were then double-matched by baseline flexion (mean 107º±2º) to 111 patients (112 TKAs) with a similar mean baseline flexion (104º±2º, p=0.138). Patient requiring MUA were younger (mean age 56 vs. 64 years, p<0.001), had more comorbidities (5 vs. 3, p<0.001), and a higher number of previous knee surgery (56% vs. 21%, p<0.001) compared with controls. The risk for requiring MUA following primary TKA was significantly higher (2.4, p<0.001) in patient with previous knee surgery (arthroscopy for meniscal pathology, ACL reconstruction, osteotomies). Tourniquet time, length of stay, number of physical therapy sessions, blood loss >50 mL and any complication during the hospital stay were not found to be associated with increased risk of requiring MUA. Discussion. Younger patients with more comorbidities and a history of previous knee surgery were found to have significantly higher risk for developing arthrofibrosis and requiring MUA after primary TKA in the current study. Patients with this risk profile need to counseled regarding the risk for arthrofibrosis possibly requiring MUA after primary TKA

A reduced range of movement post total knee replacement (TKR) surgery is a well recognised problem. Manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) is a commonly performed procedure in the stiff post operative TKR. Long term results have been variable in the literature. We prospectively followed up 48 patients since 1996 from one centre, over an average of 7.5 years, (range 1 to 10 years) and report on the long term results. The mean time to MUA post TKR was 12.3 weeks (range 3 to 48). Pre MUA, the mean flexion was 53°. The mean immediate passive flexion post MUA was 97°, an improvement of 44° (Range 10° to 90°, CI < 0.05). By one year, the mean flexion was 87°, improvement of 34°, (range −15° to 70°, CI< 0.05). At ten years the mean flexion was 86°. We found no difference between those knees manipulated before or after 12 weeks. In addition there was no difference found in those knees which had a pre TKR flexion of greater or less than 90°. There were no complications as a result of MUA. However, one patient was eventually revised at two years secondary to low grade infection. Our findings show that MUA is safe and effective method at improving the range of motion in a stiff post operative TKR. The improvement is maintained in the long term irrespective of time to MUA and range of motion pre TKR

Introduction. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) remains the gold standard to address restricted range of motion (ROM) within 3–6 months after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there is little data on the outcomes of MUA with different types of anesthesia. We sought to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing MUA with intravenous (IV) sedation and neuraxial anesthesia. Methods. We identified 548 MUAs after primary TKA (136 IV sedation, 413 neuraxial anesthesia) at a single institution from 2016–2019. Mean age was 62 years and 349 patients (64%) were female. Mean body mass index was 32 kg/m. 2. The mean time from primary TKA to MUA was 10 weeks. Mean pre-MUA ROM was similar between each group; mean pre-MUA extension was 4.2° (p=0.35) and mean pre-MUA flexion was 77° (p=0.56). Patient demographics were statistically similar between both groups. We compared immediate complications, including fracture, extensor mechanism disruptions, and wound complications, Visual analogue pain scores (VAS), length of stay (LOS), and immediate and 3 month follow-up ROM between these groups. Results. No patients in either group sustained an immediate post-MUA complication. Patients undergoing MUA with IV sedation had significantly higher day of MUA average VAS of 5.1 compared to 4.1 in the neuraxial group (p<0.001). The average LOS was shorter in patients that received IV sedation (9 hours) compared to neuraxial anesthesia (12 hours) (p=0.009). Immediate-post MUA ROM was 1° – 121° in the IV sedation group and 0.9° – 123° in the neuraxial anesthesia group (p=0.21). Three month follow-up ROM was 2° – 108° in the IV sedation group and 1.9° – 110° in the neuraxial anesthesia group. Conclusion. IV sedation and neuraxial anesthesia are both effective anesthetic methods for patients undergoing MUA after primary TKA with minimal perioperative differences. Surgeons and anesthesiologists should cater anesthetic technique to patient specific needs as the orthopedic outcomes are similar for both methods; however, IV sedation resulted in a shorter LOS

BACKGROUND. The need for post-operative manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) for stiffness after primary total knee arthroplasty is a frustrating complication that can lead to suboptimal outcomes if range-of-motion to a functional level is not regained. Implant morphology and kinematics, PCL imbalance, and soft-tissue balancing can all contribute to post-operative stiffness. Utilization of total knee arthroplasty components that replicate the native knee's medial ball and socket kinematics may lead to easier maintenance of flexion post-operatively compared to conventional components. PURPOSE. To determine if a medial pivot total knee arthroplasty design can reduce the need for post-operative MUA after primary total knee arthroplasty. METHODS. A retrospective chart review of primary total knee arthroplasties performed between 2013 and 2016 by a single fellowship-trained joint replacement surgeon was performed. Cases that met criteria for inclusion were: primary total knee arthroplasty, identifiable implant based on operative report and/or post-operative radiographs, immediate post-operative passive flexion against gravity of at least 110 degrees, and availability of post-operative follow-up notes documenting range-of-motion that was either satisfactory or necessitating need for MUA. The need for a MUA was deemed necessary if post-operative flexion was not beyond 90 degrees within six weeks of surgery. The percentage of patients requiring MUA for a group implanted with the EVOLUTION Medial Pivot System was compared to a group implanted with all other designs (Stryker Triathlon CR, PS, TS). RESULTS. One hundred fifty-six cases met criteria for inclusion and were reviewed. The Triathlon system was used predominantly in the first half of the study period and accounted for 65 (42%) of the cases performed. Six patients in this group underwent MUA and two patients required repeated MUA. An additional patient in the Triathlon group met the criteria for MUA but had other conditions which prevented the investigators from performing it. The percentage of patients who met the indication for MUA in the Triathlon group was 10.8%. The EVOLUTION system was used predominantly in the second half of the study period and accounted for 91 (58%) of the cases performed. There were two patients (2.2%) who met criteria for MUA and both patients subsequently underwent MUA. There was a statistically significant reduction in the number of patients meeting criteria for MUA in the EVOLUTION group compared with the Triathlon group (p=0.024). CONCLUSION. Utilization of a medial ball and socket design for primary total knee arthroplasty allows the polyethylene implant to control the position of the femur on the tibia. This design possibly allows for improved early maintenance of post-operative flexion, which may minimize the need for post-operative MUA. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly (see Info & Metrics tab above).

Hallux rigidus is the second most common pathological condition of the first metatarsophalangeal joint, after hallux valgus. Manipulation of the joint and injection with steroid and local anaesthetic (MUA and Injection) is widely practiced, but the literature contains little information on the results of such treatment. We report the results of this procedure performed on thirty-seven joints, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year (mean 41.2 months). Patients with mild (Grade I) changes gained symptomatic relief for a mean of 6 months and only one third required further surgery. Two thirds of patients with moderate (Grade II) disease proceeded to open surgery. In advanced (Grade III) hallux rigidus little symptomatic relief was obtained and all patients required operative treatment. We recommend that joints are Graded before treatment and that MUA and injection be used only in early (Grades I and II) hallux rigidus.

Aims. A pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled trial, UK FROzen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), was conducted in the UK NHS comparing the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments for adults with primary frozen shoulder in secondary care. Methods. A cost utility analysis from the NHS perspective was performed. Differences between manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic capsular release (ACR), and early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection (ESP) in costs (2018 GBP price base) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at one year were used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments using regression methods. Results. ACR was £1,734 more costly than ESP ((95% confidence intervals (CIs) £1,529 to £1,938)) and £1,457 more costly than MUA (95% CI £1,283 to £1,632). MUA was £276 (95% CI £66 to £487) more expensive than ESP. Overall, ACR had worse QALYs compared with MUA (-0.0293; 95% CI -0.0616 to 0.0030) and MUA had better QALYs compared with ESP (0.0396; 95% CI -0.0008 to 0.0800). At a £20,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, MUA had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0.8632) then ESP (0.1366) and ACR (0.0002). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. While ESP was less costly, MUA was the most cost-effective option. ACR was not cost-effective. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):685–695

Aims. This systematic review places a recently completed multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT), UK FROST, in the context of existing randomized evidence for the management of primary frozen shoulder. UK FROST compared the effectiveness of pre-specified physiotherapy techniques with a steroid injection (PTSI), manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) with a steroid injection, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR). This review updates a 2012 review focusing on the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, hydrodilatation, and PTSI. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, Science Citation Index, Clinicaltrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry were searched up to December 2018. Reference lists of included studies were screened. No language restrictions applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, PTSI, and hydrodilatation against each other, or supportive care or no treatment, for the management of primary frozen shoulder. Results. Nine RCTs were included. The primary outcome of patient-reported shoulder function at long-term follow-up (> 6 months and ≤ 12 months) was reported for five treatment comparisons across four studies. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were: ACR versus MUA: 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.42), ACR versus supportive care: -0.13 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.83), and ACR versus PTSI: 0.33 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.59) and 0.25 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.85), all favouring ACR; MUA versus supportive care: 0 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.44) not favouring either; and MUA versus PTSI: 0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.37) favouring MUA. None of these differences met the threshold of clinical significance agreed for the UK FROST and most confidence intervals included zero. Conclusion. The findings from a recent multicentre RCT provided the strongest evidence that, when compared with each other, neither PTSI, MUA, nor ACR are clinically superior. Evidence from smaller RCTs did not change this conclusion. The effectiveness of hydrodilatation based on four RCTs was inconclusive and there remains an evidence gap. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):773–784

Multiligament knee injuries (MLKI) are rare and life-altering injuries that remain difficult to treat clinically due to a paucity of evidence guiding surgical management and timing. The purpose of this study was to compare injury specific functional outcomes following early versus delayed surgical reconstruction in MLKI patients to help inform timing decisions in clinical practice. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from patients with MLKIs at a single academic level 1-trauma center was conducted. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had an MLKI, underwent reconstructive surgery either prior to 6wks from injury or between 12weeks and 2 years from injury, and had at least 12months of post-surgical follow-up. Patients with a vascular injury, open injuries or associated fractures were excluded. Study participants were stratified into early (12 weeks - 2 years from injury). The primary outcome was patient reported, injury specific, quality of life in the form of the Multiligament Quality of Life questionnaire (MLQOL) and its four domains (Physical Impairment, Emotional Impairment, Activity Limitations and Societal Involvement). We secondarily analyzed differences in the need for manipulation under anesthesia, and reoperation rates, as well as radiographic Kellgren Lawrence (KL) arthritis grades, knee laxity grading and range of motion at the most recent follow-up. A total of 131 patients met our inclusion criteria, all having had surgery between 2006 and 2019. There were 75 patients in the early group and 56 in the delayed group. The mean time to surgery was 17.6 ± 8.0 days in the early group versus 279 ± 146.5 days in the delayed. Mean postoperative follow-up was 58 months. There were no significant differences between early and delayed groups with respect to age (34 vs. 32.8 years), sex (77% vs 63% male), BMI (28.3 vs 29.7 kg/m2), or injury mechanism (p>0.05). The early surgery group was found to include more patients with lateral sided injuries (n=49 [65%] vs. n=23 [41%]; p=0.012), a higher severity of Schenck Classification (p=0.024) as well as nerve injuries at initial presentation (n=35 [49%] vs n=8 [18%]; p0.05), when controlling for age, sex, Schenck classification, medial versus lateral injury, and nerve injury status. In terms of our secondary outcomes, we found that the early group underwent significantly more manipulations under anesthesia compare with the delayed group (n=24, [32%] vs n=8 [14%], p=0.024). We did not identify a significant difference in physical examination laxity grades, range of motion, KL grade or reoperation rates between groups (p>0.05). We found no difference in patient reported outcomes between those who underwent early versus delayed surgery following MLKI reconstruction. In our secondary outcomes, we found significantly more patients in the early surgery group required a manipulation under anesthesia following surgery, which may indicate a propensity for arthrofibrosis after early MLKI reconstruction

Multiligament knee injuries (MLKI) are rare and life-altering injuries that remain difficult to treat clinically due to a paucity of evidence guiding surgical management and timing. The purpose of this study was to compare injury specific functional outcomes following early versus delayed surgical reconstruction in MLKI patients to help inform timing decisions in clinical practice. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from patients with MLKIs at a single academic level 1-trauma center was conducted. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had an MLKI, underwent reconstructive surgery either prior to 6wks from injury or between 12weeks and 2 years from injury, and had at least 12months of post-surgical follow-up. Patients with a vascular injury, open injuries or associated fractures were excluded. Study participants were stratified into early (<6wks from injury) and delayed surgical intervention (>12 weeks – 2 years from injury). The primary outcome was patient reported, injury specific, quality of life in the form of the Multiligament Quality of Life questionnaire (MLQOL) and its four domains (Physical Impairment, Emotional Impairment, Activity Limitations and Societal Involvement). We secondarily analyzed differences in the need for manipulation under anesthesia, and reoperation rates, as well as radiographic Kellgren Lawrence (KL) arthritis grades, knee laxity grading and range of motion at the most recent follow-up. A total of 131 patients met our inclusion criteria, all having had surgery between 2006 and 2019. There were 75 patients in the early group and 56 in the delayed group. The mean time to surgery was 17.6 ± 8.0 days in the early group versus 279 ± 146.5 days in the delayed. Mean postoperative follow-up was 58 months. There were no significant differences between early and delayed groups with respect to age (34 vs. 32.8 years), sex (77% vs 63% male), BMI (28.3 vs 29.7 kg/m. 2. ), or injury mechanism (p>0.05). The early surgery group was found to include more patients with lateral sided injuries (n=49 [65%] vs. n=23 [41%]; p=0.012), a higher severity of Schenck Classification (p=0.024) as well as nerve injuries at initial presentation (n=35 [49%] vs n=8 [18%]; p<0.001). Multivariable linear regression analyses of the four domains of the MLQOL did not demonstrate an independent association with early versus delayed surgery status (p>0.05), when controlling for age, sex, Schenck classification, medial versus lateral injury, and nerve injury status. In terms of our secondary outcomes, we found that the early group underwent significantly more manipulations under anesthesia compare with the delayed group (n=24, [32%] vs n=8 [14%], p=0.024). We did not identify a significant difference in physical examination laxity grades, range of motion, KL grade or reoperation rates between groups (p>0.05). We found no difference in patient reported outcomes between those who underwent early versus delayed surgery following MLKI reconstruction. In our secondary outcomes, we found significantly more patients in the early surgery group required a manipulation under anesthesia following surgery, which may indicate a propensity for arthrofibrosis after early MLKI reconstruction

Aims. Despite multiple trials and case series on hip hemiarthroplasty designs, guidance is still lacking on which implant to use. One particularly deficient area is long-term outcomes. We present over 1,000 consecutive cemented Thompson’s hemiarthroplasties over a ten-year period, recording all accessible patient and implant outcomes. Methods. Patient identifiers for a consecutive cohort treated between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2011 were linked to radiographs, surgical notes, clinic letters, and mortality data from a national dataset. This allowed charting of their postoperative course, complications, readmissions, returns to theatre, revisions, and deaths. We also identified all postoperative attendances at the Emergency and Outpatient Departments, and recorded any subsequent skeletal injuries. Results. In total, 1,312 Thompson’s hemiarthroplasties were analyzed (mean age at surgery 82.8 years); 125 complications were recorded, necessitating 82 returns to theatre. These included 14 patients undergoing aspiration or manipulation under anaesthesia, 68 reoperations (5.2%) for debridement and implant retention (n = 12), haematoma evacuation (n = 2), open reduction for dislocation (n = 1), fixation of periprosthetic fracture (n = 5), and 48 revised stems (3.7%), for infection (n = 13), dislocation (n = 12), aseptic loosening (n = 9), persistent pain (n = 6), periprosthetic fracture (n = 4), acetabular erosion (n = 3), and metastatic bone disease (n = 1). Their status at ten years is summarized as follows: 1,180 (89.9%) dead without revision, 34 (2.6%) dead having had revision, 84 (6.6%) alive with the stem unrevised, and 14 (1.1%) alive having had revision. Cumulative implant survivorship was 90.3% at ten years; patient survivorship was 7.4%. Conclusion. The Thompson’s stem demonstrates very low rates of complications requiring reoperation and revision, up to ten years after the index procedure. Fewer than one in ten patients live for ten years after fracture. This study supports the use of a cemented Thompson’s implant as a cost-effective option for frail hip fracture patients. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):710–715

Introduction Management of cervical fracture-dislocation varies greatly. When using closed reducition it is not known what are the upper limits of skeletal-traction, the indications and approach of surgery. This study was done to evaluate a stepwise closed reduction protocol using vector principles and define the upper limit of weight tolerated by skeletal traction and manipulation under anaesthesia. Methods This study includes 47 patients of traumatic tetraplegia reporting within three weeks of injury. A sequential protocol was followed using the vector principle for closed reduction by skeletal traction. To begin with, three bricks (18.42 pounds) sustained traction was applied keeping the vector in flexion for five to six hours. This was followed by straightening of the spine and observing realignment. Check x-rays were taken. Acceptable reduction were maintained in extension. If reduciton was unacceptable, weights were added in one brick (6.14 pound) increments and sequential steps repeated. Vector angle in flexion, neutral and extension was easily maintained with bolsters, neck rolls and balancing bar. Manipulation under anaesthesia was tried when this protocol failed. Results Reduction was achieved in 41 of 47 (87.22%) within 24 hours. Maximum weight needed was six bricks (36.84 pounds). All irreducible dislocations showed symptoms of cord stretching when higher weights were applied in terms of pain, dizziness, nausea and hypotension with neurological deterioration in two. Maximum weight that could be tolerated was only up to 28% of body weight. MUA was associated with high risk because of compromised cardio-pulmonary status in majority. It was tried only when this protocol failed in four of six unacceptable reductions. In all four reduction could not be achieved by MUA and they required open reduction. Two patients did not give consent for MUA and for surgery and remained unreduced. Distal neurological recovery was seen in 23.33% of complete and 88.23% of incomplete cases. Rapid root recovery at the site of cord injury was seen in all 47 patients suggesting zonal segmental recovery. Pain function score as per Porlo’s scale was satisfactory in 43 of 47 patients. Loosening and infection at pin site was observed in four. Two patients who deteriorated neurologically on increasing the weights of skeletal traction recovered to initial level within a week when weights were brought back to tolerance limits. Conclusions Cervical fracture-dislocations can easily be reduced without the need of heavy traction if traction is applied on vector principles. Manipulation under anesthesia with associated risks seem to have no advantage over reduction by this protocol