Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 3 | Pages 239 - 246
1 Mar 2023
Arshad Z Aslam A Al Shdefat S Khan R Jamil O Bhatia M

Aims. This systematic review aimed to summarize the full range of complications reported following ankle arthroscopy and the frequency at which they occur. Methods. A computer-based search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Emcare, and ISI Web of Science. Two-stage title/abstract and full-text screening was performed independently by two reviewers. English-language original research studies reporting perioperative complications in a cohort of at least ten patients undergoing ankle arthroscopy were included. Complications were pooled across included studies in order to derive an overall complication rate. Quality assessment was performed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence classification. Results. A total of 150 studies describing 7,942 cases of ankle arthroscopy in 7,777 patients were included. The overall pooled complication rate was 325/7,942 (4.09%). The most common complication was neurological injury, accounting for 180/325 (55.4%) of all complications. Of these, 59 (32.7%) affected the superficial peroneal nerve. Overall, 36/180 (20%) of all nerve injuries were permanent. The overall complication rate following anterior ankle arthroscopy was 205/4,709 (4.35%) compared to a rate of 35/528 (6.6%) following posterior arthroscopy. Neurological injury occurred in 52/1,998 (2.6%) of anterior cases using distraction, compared to 59/2,711 (2.2%) in cases with no distraction. The overall rate of major complications was 16/7,942 (0.2%), with the most common major complication – deep vein thrombosis – occurring in five cases. Conclusion. This comprehensive systematic review demonstrates that ankle arthroscopy is a safe procedure with a low overall complication rate. The majority of complications are minor, with potentially life-threatening complications reported in only 0.2% of patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):239–246


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1489 - 1497
1 Dec 2019
Wang J Ma H Chou TA Tsai S Chen C Wu P Chen W

Aims. 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. Materials and Methods. 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). Results. This study included a total of 679 TEAs for RA (n = 482) or post-traumatic conditions (n = 197). After exclusion, all of the TEAs included in this meta-analysis were cemented with linked components. Our analysis demonstrated that the RA group was associated with a higher risk of septic loosening after TEA (odds ratio (OR) 3.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 14.12), while there was an increased risk of bushing wear, axle failure, component disassembly, or component fracture in the post-traumatic group (OR 4.72, 95% CI 2.37 to 9.35). A higher MEPS (standardized mean difference 0.634, 95% CI 0.379 to 0.890) was found in the RA group. There were no significant differences in arc of range of movement, DASH questionnaire, and risk of aseptic loosening, deep infection, perioperative fracture, or ulnar neuropathy. Conclusion. The aetiology of TEA surgery appears to have an impact on the outcome in terms of specific modes of implant failures. RA patients might have a better functional outcome after TEA surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1489–1497


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 8 | Pages 967 - 980
1 Aug 2020
Chou TA Ma H Wang J Tsai S Chen C Wu P Chen W

Aims

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.

Methods

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.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1535 - 1541
1 Dec 2018
Farrow L Ablett AD Mills L Barker S

Aims

We set out to determine if there is a difference in perioperative outcomes between early and delayed surgery in paediatric supracondylar humeral fractures in the absence of vascular compromise through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Materials and Methods

A literature search was performed, with search outputs screened for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The groups of early surgery (ES) and delayed surgery (DS) were classified by study authors. The primary outcome measure was open reduction requirement. Meta-analysis was performed in the presence of sufficient study homogeneity. Individual study risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I) criteria, with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria used to evaluate outcomes independently.