Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Applied filters
Research

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_7 | Pages 64 - 64
4 Apr 2023
Hartland A Islam R Teoh K Rashid M
Full Access

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.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_7 | Pages 62 - 62
4 Apr 2023
Rashid M Islam R Marsden S Trompeter A Teoh K
Full Access

A number of classification systems exist for posterior malleolus fractures of the ankle. The reliability of these classification systems remains unclear. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of three commonly utilised fracture classification systems of the posterior malleolus.

60 patients across 2 hospitals sustaining an unstable ankle fracture with a posterior malleolus fragment were identified. All patients underwent radiographs and computed tomography of their injured ankle. 9 surgeons including pre-ST3 level, ST3-8 level, and consultant level applied the Haraguchi, Rammelt, and Mason & Molloy classifications to these patients, at two timepoints, at least 4 weeks apart. The order was randomised between assessments. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Intra-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa and standard error (SE).

Inter-rater reliability (Fleiss’ Kappa) was calculated for the Haraguchi classification as 0.522 (95% CI 0.490 – 0.553), for the Rammelt classification as 0.626 (95% CI 0.600 – 0.652), and the Mason & Molloy classification as 0.541 (95% CI 0.514 – 0.569). Intra-rater reliability (Cohen's Kappa) was 0.764 (SE 0.034) for the Haraguchi, 0.763 (SE 0.031) for the Rammelt, 0.688 (SE 0.035) for the Mason & Molloy classification.

This study reports the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability for three classification systems for posterior malleolus fractures. Based on definitions by Landis & Koch (1977), inter-rater reliability was rated as ‘moderate’ for the Haraguchi and Mason & Molloy classifications; and ‘substantial’ for the Rammelt classification. Similarly, the intra-rater reliability was rated as ‘substantial’ for all three classifications.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 103-B, Issue SUPP_13 | Pages 35 - 35
1 Nov 2021
Hartland A Islam R Teoh K Rashid M
Full Access

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.