Background. Despite arthroscopy being the gold standard for long head of biceps pathology, the literature is seemingly lacking in any critical appraisal or validation to support its use. The aim of this study was to evaluate its appropriateness as a benchmark for diagnosis. The objectives were to evaluate whether the length of the tendon examined at arthroscopy allows visualisation of areas of predilection of pathology and also to determine the rates of missed diagnoses when compared to an open approach. Methods. A systematic review of cadaveric and clinical studies was performed. The search strategy was applied to Medline, PubMed and Google Scholar databases. All relevant articles were included. Critical appraisal of clinical studies was performed using a validated quality assessment scale. Results. Six articles were identified for inclusion in the review. This included both clinical and cadaveric studies. The overall population comprised 25 cadaveric specimens and 575 patients. Cadaveric studies showed that the use of a hook probe allowed arthroscopic visualisation of between 28% and 48% of the overall length of the LHB. In the clinical series the rate of missed diagnoses at arthroscopy when compared to open exploration ranged between 33% and 49%. Conclusions. The standard technique of pulling the LHB tendon into the joint at glenohumeral arthroscopy provides only limited excursion and does not allow visualisation of areas of predilection of pathology. This is confirmed by an extremely high rate of missed diagnoses when comparing arthroscopy to open exploration. It is important that clinicians recognise that a “normal” arthroscopic examination of the LHB tendon does not exclude pathology and that published literature reporting sensitivities and specificities for physical examination and imaging tests based on arthroscopy as a gold standard are invalid. Level of evidence. IIa – systematic review of cohort studies. Conflict of Interests. The authors confirm that they have no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Ethical approval was not sought as this was a systematic review

Abstract. Objective. There is no specific framework for the clinical management of sports related brachial plexus injuries. Necessarily, rehabilitation is based on injury presentation and clinical diagnostics but it is unclear what the underlying evidence base to inform rehabilitative management. Methods. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We applied the PEO criteria to inform our search strategy to find articles that reported the rehabilitative management of brachial plexus injuries sustained while playing contact sports. An electronic search of Medline, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science from inception to 3rd November 2022 was conducted. MESH terms and Boolean operators were employed. We applied an English language restriction but no other filters. Manual searches of Google Scholar and citation searching of included manuscripts were also completed. All study types were considered for inclusion provided they were published as peer-reviewed primary research articles and contained relevant information. Two investigators independently carried out the searches, screened by title, abstract and full text. Two researchers independently extracted the data from included articles. Data was cross-checked by a third researcher to ensure consistency. To assess internal validity and risk of bias, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools were utilised. Results. The search generated 88 articles. Following removal of duplicates, 43 papers were evaluated against the eligibility criteria. Nine were eligible for full text review, with the majority of exclusions being expert opinion articles. Eight case reports were included. One article reported three individuals, resulting in data for ten athletes. The mean age was 19.8 years (±4.09). Injuries occurred in five American football players, two wrestlers, two rugby players, and a basketball player. No two studies applied the same diagnostic terminology and the severity of injury varied widely. Burning pain and altered sensation was the most commonly reported symptom, alongside motor weakness in the upper limb. Clinical presentation and management differed by injury pattern. Traction injuries caused biceps motor weakness and atrophy of the deltoid region, whereas compression injuries led to rotator cuff weakness. In all cases treatment was separated into acute and rehabilitative management phases, however the time frames related to these differed. Acute interventions varied but essentially entailed soft tissue inflammation management. Rehabilitation approaches variously included strengthening of shoulder complex and cervical musculature. Return-to-play criteria was opaque. The methodological quality of the case reports was acceptable. Four met all nine of the JBI evaluation criteria, and a further three met at least 75% of items. Conclusion(s). There is a distinct lack of evidence supporting rehabilitation management of sports related brachial plexus injury. Through systematic review we found only eight reports, representing ten individual case studies. No trials, cohort studies, or even retrospective registry-based studies are available to inform clinical management, which, necessarily, is driven by expert opinion and application of basic rehabilitation principles. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Background. Distal radius fractures are common injuries but no clear consensus regarding optimal management of unstable fractures exists. Open reduction and internal fixation with volar plates is an increasingly popular but the associated complication rate can be 10%. Intramedullary nails are an alternative offering the potential advantages of reduced risk of tendon injury and intra-articular screw penetration. This article systematically reviews the published literature evaluating the biomechanics, outcomes and complications of intramedullary nails in the management of distal radius fractures. Methods. A systematic review of Medline and EMBASE databases was performed for studies reporting the biomechanics, functional outcome or complications following intramedullary nailing of distal radius fractures. Critical appraisal was performed with respect to validated quality assessment scales. Results. 16 studies were included for review. The biomechanical studies concluded that intramedullary nails had at least comparable strength to locking plates. The clinical studies reported that IM nailing was associated with comparable ROM, functional outcome and grip strength to alternative fixation techniques. However, the mean complication rate was 17.6% (range 0 to 50%) with the most common complication being neurapraxia of the superficial radial nerve in 9.5%. Conclusion. This systematic review of pooled data from published series has shown that IM nailing can give comparable clinical results to current treatment modalities in extra-articular and simple intra-articular distal radius fractures. However the evidence is insufficient to determine whether IM nailing has any clinically important advantage over well-established alternatives. The complication rate reported is higher than that in contemporary studies for volar plating and this raises concerns about the role of this technique particularly when comparative studies have failed to show any major advantage to its use. Further adequately powered RCTs comparing the technique to both volar plates and percutaneous wire fixation are required. Level of evidence. IIa – systematic review of cohort studies. Conflict of Interests. The authors confirm that they have no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Ethical approval was not sought as this was a systematic review

Aims. A systematic review of the available literature comparing the outcomes of radiofrequency denervation to sham procedure in treating chronic low back pain caused by lumber zygapophysial joint pathology. Methods. Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for English language articles from 2005 to July 2010. Articles were considered for review if they satisfied the inclusion criteria: Randomised Controlled Trials(RCT) comparing radiofrequency neurotomy(RFN) to a ‘placebo’ procedure in patients with chronic low back pain caused by facet joint osteoarthritis. Adult patients of both sexes above 17 years of age who complained of continuous low back pain for more than 6 months with focal tenderness over the facet joints. Outcome measures of interest are pain improvement, physical activity, analgesic use, quality of life variables, range of motion of the lumbar spine and hip movement. Critical appraisal of the selected studies was carried out using the CASP appraisal tool for RCT. Results. Two articles were identified. Both demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the pain (p<0.05) using a visual analogue scale in the RFN group compared to the sham procedure. Only one trial demonstrated a corresponding reduction in analgesic use. There was no consensus of improvement of quality of life factors in either study as compared to placebo. Conclusion. Radiofrequency denervation is better than sham procedure in treating pain caused by facet joint osteoarthritis with minimal adverse effects in the short term. A higher powered trial using a larger cohort and longer follow up is required to resolve some of the equivocal results. Conflicts of Interest. None. Source of Funding. None

Summary Statement. With increasing emphasis on evidence-based medicine in healthcare, there is global increase in proportion of Level-1 and -2 articles in PUBMED. This study shows the trend of orthopaedic publications from different countries in comparison to other specialties. Introduction. New medical knowledge is expected to improve health through change in existing practices. Articles need to convince readers of the validity of conclusions in order to bring about a change in practice. The last few decades have witnessed an increasing interest in critical appraisal of research aimed at assessing the ‘quality’ of evidence, a trend towards ‘Evidence Based Medicine’. Whether orthopaedic publications are also becoming more evidence-based has hitherto not been reported. This study aimed to compare the trend of publications originating from orthopaedic services versus other specialties, across different countries, with respect to major categories of levels of evidence. Methods. PUBMED was used to collect data on yearly publication of articles, categorised by country, specialty (from author address) and article category (Guideline, Review, Case Report, Comparative Study, Clinical Trial and Meta-Analysis). Results. PUBMED shows 20,572,125 articles published between 1900 and 2010. Of these, 64% were published within the quarter century 1986–2010. Publication type was specified in 25% of articles, of which 8% were review articles, 7% each were case reports and comparative studies while 3% were clinical trials. The top ten countries from which articles originated were US, UK, Japan, Germany, France, Canada, Italy, Australia, Netherlands and Sweden. Comparing the decade of 1990s with 2000s, the number of meta-analyses showed greatest increase from Australia, Japan, Germany, UK and Italy (9.5x-6.1x). When comparing types of articles between the beginning and end of the quarter century, the proportion of clinical trials increased by 2x, guidelines by 5x and meta-analyses/systematic reviews by 28x. There were 121,859 articles from orthopaedic departments/institutes (0.6% of all articles). There was a consistent increase in the proportion of orthopaedic publications from 0.5% to 1.1% over the quarter century; this 231% increase was lower than vascular, cardiothoracic and paediatric surgery but greater than urology, neurosurgery, otolaryngology and obstetrics/gynecology. Among the different types of publications, in orthopaedics the greatest increase between the decades of 1990s and 2000s was in meta-analyses (8.5x) followed by guidelines (5.4x). This increase in number of meta-analyses was higher than other surgical specialties except cardiothoracic and vascular surgery, both of which showed a 13x increase. Among the meta-analyses from surgical specialties, the proportion from orthopaedics and vascular surgery was increasing consistently, with the former now contributing to 13% of all meta-analyses. In comparison, increase in number of clinical trials has been relatively modest for orthopaedics (2.4x), being lower than vascular surgery (3.3x), plastic surgery (2.8x) and neurosurgery (2.6x). Dicussion/Conclusion. The proportion of clinical trials and guidelines was increasing in a linear fashion in the last 25 years, while the proportion of meta-analyses/systematic reviews was increasing logarithmically. Among European countries, Germany, UK and Italy contributed to the highest number of meta-analyses. Publications from orthopaedic departments showed an overall intermediate rate of increase, but meta-analyses/systematic reviews showed a consistently higher increase compared to other surgical specialties. This analysis shows the trend of orthopaedic evidence in published literature and may be used as a guide to future country-specific research directions in the discipline of orthopaedics

Objectives

To explore whether orthopaedic surgeons have adopted the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation (PROFHER) trial results routinely into clinical practice.

Objectives

Evidence -based medicine (EBM) is designed to inform clinical decision-making within all medical specialties, including orthopaedic surgery. We recently published a pilot survey of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) membership and demonstrated that the adoption of EBM principles is variable among Canadian orthopaedic surgeons. The objective of this study was to conduct a broader international survey of orthopaedic surgeons to identify characteristics of research studies perceived as being most influential in informing clinical decision-making.