The aims of this study were to validate the outcome of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to identify factors that affect the outcome. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews, and Embase from between January 2003 and March 2019. The primary aim was to determine the implant failure rate, the mode of failure, and risk factors predisposing to failure. A secondary aim was to identify the overall complication rate, associated risk factors, and clinical performance. A meta-regression analysis was completed to identify the association between each parameter with the outcome.Aims
Methods
The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcome of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) undertaken for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with TEA performed for post-traumatic conditions with regard to implant failure, functional outcome, and perioperative complications. We completed a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nine cohort studies investigated the outcome of TEA between RA and post-traumatic conditions. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)) guidelines and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were applied to assess the quality of the included studies. We assessed three major outcome domains: implant failures (including aseptic loosening, septic loosening, bushing wear, axle failure, component disassembly, or component fracture); functional outcomes (including arc of range of movement, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire), and perioperative complications (including deep infection, intraoperative fracture, postoperative fracture, and ulnar neuropathy).Aims
Materials and Methods
Metastatic spinal disease is a common entity of much debate in terms of ideal surgical treatment. The introduction of MIS can be a game-changer in the treatment of MSD due to less peri-operative morbidity and allowing earlier radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Less invasive techniques have always been welcome for management of patients with ‘Metastatic Spinal Disorders’. This is because these patients can be poor candidates for extensive / major invasive surgery even though radiologically, there may be an indication for one. The aim of the treatment with Minimal Invasive Fixation (MIS) systems is mainly for ‘pain relief’ than to radically decrease tumour burden or to achieve near total spinal cord decompression, which could be major presentations in these patients. These procedures address the ‘spinal instability’ very well and they can address pain associated with compression fractures resulting from metastatic disease from a solid organ as well as multiple myeloma with minimal complications. These procedures can be combined with radiology and chemotherapy without much concern for wound problems in the way of infection or dehiscence. They also have a great advantage of timing of adjunct therapy closer to the index procedure. The disadvantage, however, are they do not allow thorough decompression of the spinal cord. There could also be problem in addressing patients who have severe vertebral height loss or loss of integrity of the anterior column where anterior column reconstruction may be required. There is a risk of inadequate fixation or implant loosening or failure. We aim to examine the results of MIS surgery in our department and support the rationale for its use.Summary
Introduction
We evaluated the long-term outcome of patients with an osteosarcoma who had undergone prior manipulative therapy, a popular treatment in Asia, and investigated its effects on several prognostic factors. Of the 134 patients in this study, 70 (52%) patients had manipulative therapy and 64 (48%) did not. The age, location, and size of tumour were not significantly different between the groups. The five-year overall survival rate was 58% and 92% in the groups with and without manipulative therapy (p = 0.004). Both the primary and overall rates of lung metastasis were significantly higher in the manipulative group (primary: 32% This form of therapy may serve as a mechanism to accelerate the spread of tumour cells, and therefore must be avoided in order to improve the outcome for patients with an osteosarcoma.
