Rotator cuff injuries have traditionally been managed by either single-row or double-row arthroscopic repair techniques. Novel and more complex single-row methodologies have recently been proposed as a biomechanically stronger alternative. However, no rigorous meta-analysis has evaluated the effectiveness of complex single-row against double-row repair. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with full-thickness rotator cuff injuries treated with both simple and complex single-row, as well as transosseous-equivalent double-row procedures. An up-to-date literature search was performed using the pre-defined search strategy. All studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for methodological quality and included in the meta-analysis. Pain score, functional score, range-of-motion and Re-tear rate were all considered in the study.Abstract
Background
Methods
Our objective was to perform a systematic review of the literature and conduct a meta- analysis to investigate the effect of initial varus or valgus displacement of proximal humerus on the outcomes of patients with proximal humerus fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards, we performed a systematic review. Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify randomised and non-randomised studies comparing postoperative outcomes associated with initial varus versus initial valgus displacement of proximal humerus fracture. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of the selected studies. Fixed-effect or random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data.Objectives
Methods
Our objective was to perform a systematic review of the literature and conduct a meta-analysis to investigate the outcomes of open versus arthroscopic methods of ankle fusion. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards, we performed a systematic review. Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify randomised and non-randomised studies comparing outcomes of arthroscopic and open ankle arthrodesis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of the selected studies. Fixed-effect or random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data.Objectives
Methods
