Knee osteoarthritis is a common, debilitating condition. Intra articular corticosteroid injections are a commonly used non-operative treatment strategy. Intra articular hip injection with Ketorolac (an NSAID) has proven to be as efficacious as corticosteroids. No prior study compares the efficacy of Ketorolac relative to corticosteroids for relief of discomfort in knee osteoarthritis. The study design was a single centre double blinded RCT. Severity of osteoarthritic changes were graded on plain film weightbearing radiographs using the Kellgren and Lawrence system. Injection was with either 30mg Ketorolac or 40mg Methylprednisolone, given by intra-articular injection, in a syringe with 5mls 0.5% Marcaine. Pre-injection clinical outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Pain Score (NPS), WOMAC, and Oxford knee scores. Patients' NPS scores were assessed at Day 1 and Day 14 post-injection. An assessment of all clinical outcomes took place in clinic at six weeks. There were 72 participants (83 knees) in the study. No patients were lost to follow-up. Mean age was 62.66 years (Range 29–85). 42 knees received a corticosteroid injection, 41 a NSAID injection. Mean Kellgren and Lawrence score was 3.1. There was no significant difference in pre-injection clinical scores in either group. There was a significant improvement of NPS on Day 1 and 14 in both injection groups(p<0.05). These improved pain scores were sustained at 6 weeks in both groups. WOMAC and Oxford Knee Scores showed a statistically significant improvement in the corticosteroid group. WOMAC scores showed significant improvement in the NSAID group, however these improvements didn't achieve statistical significance using the Oxford Knee Score. Corticosteroid or NSAID injectate are a safe and effective non-operative treatment strategy in the patient with knee osteoarthritis. Ketorolac appears to provide effective medium-term improvement of pain and clinical scores. Further follow-up is recommended to investigate if this trend in sustained.

There remains much debate regarding the optimal method for surgical management of patients with long head of biceps pathology. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of tenotomy versus tenodesis. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (ref: CRD42020198658). Electronic databases searched included EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tenotomy versus tenodesis were included. Risk of bias within studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias v2.0 tool and the Jadad score. The primary outcome included patient reported functional outcome measures pooled using standardized mean difference (SMD) and a random effects model. Secondary outcome measures included pain (visual analogue scale VAS), rate of Popeye deformity, and operative time. 860 patients from 11 RCTs (426 tenotomy vs 434 tenodesis) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of all PROMs data demonstrated comparable outcomes between tenotomy vs tenodesis (SMD 0.14, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.32; p=0.13). Sensitivity analysis comparing RCTs involving patients with and without an intact rotator cuff did not change the primary outcome. There was no significant difference for pain (VAS). Tenodesis resulted in a lower rate of Popeye deformity (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.45, p < 0.00001). Tenotomy demonstrated a shorter operative time (MD 15.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 29.36, p < 0.00001). Aside from a lower rate of cosmetic deformity, tenodesis yielded no measurable significant benefit to tenotomy for addressing pathology in the long head of biceps. A large multi-centre clinical effectiveness randomised controlled trial is needed to provide clarity in this area

To compare the efficacy of intra-articular and intravenous modes of administration of tranexamic acid in primary total knee arthroplasty in terms of blood loss and fall in haemoglobin level. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial. Duration of Study: Six months, from May 2019 to Nov 2019. Seventy-eight patients were included in the study. All patients undergoing unilateral primary total knee replacement were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were patients with hepatitis B and C, history of previous knee replacement, bilateral total knee replacement, allergy to TXA, Hb less than 11g/dl in males and less than 10g/dl in females, renal dysfunction, use of anticoagulants for 7 days prior to surgery and history of thromboembolic diseases. Patients were randomly divided into group A and B. Group A patients undergoing unilateral primary total knee replacement (TKR) were given intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) while group B were infiltrated with intra-articular TXA. Volume of drain output, fall in haemoglobin (Hb) level and need for blood transfusion were measured immediately after surgery and at 12 and 24 hours post operatively in both groups. The study included 35 (44.87%) male and 43 (55.13%) female patients. Mean age of patients was 61 ± 6.59 years. The mean drain output calculated immediately after surgery in group A was 45.38 ± 20.75 ml compared with 47.95 ± 23.86 ml in group B (p=0.73). At 24 hours post operatively, mean drain output was 263.21 ± 38.50 ml in intravenous group versus 243.59 ± 70.73 ml in intra-articular group (p=0.46). Regarding fall in Hb level, both groups showed no significant difference (p>0.05). About 12.82% (n=5) patients in group A compared to 10.26% (n=4) patients required blood transfusion post operatively (p=0.72). Intra-articular and intravenous TXA are equally effective in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty in reducing post-operative blood loss

Introduction and Objective. There remains much debate regarding the optimal method for surgical management of patients with long head of biceps pathology. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of tenotomy versus tenodesis. Materials and Methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (ref: CRD42020198658). Electronic databases searched included EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tenotomy versus tenodesis were included. Risk of bias within studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias v2.0 tool and the Jadad score. The primary outcome included patient reported functional outcome measures pooled using standardized mean difference (SMD) and a random effects model. Secondary outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS), rate of cosmetic deformity (Popeye sign), range of motion, operative time, and elbow flexion strength. Results. 751 patients from 10 RCTs demonstrated (369 tenotomy vs 382 tenodesis) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of all PROMs data demonstrated comparable outcomes between tenotomy vs tenodesis (SMD 0.17 95% CI −0.02 to 0.36, p=0.09). Sensitivity analysis comparing RCTs involving patients with and without an intact rotator cuff did not change the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes including VAS, shoulder external rotation, and elbow flexion strength did not reveal any significant difference. Tenodesis resulted in a lower rate of Popeye deformity (OR 0.27 95% CI 0.16 to 0.45, p<0.00001). Conclusions. Aside from a lower rate of cosmetic deformity, tenodesis yielded no measurable significant benefit to tenotomy for addressing pathology in the long head of biceps. This finding was irrespective of the whether the rotator cuff was intact