Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 2, Issue 8 | Pages 646 - 654
16 Aug 2021
Martin JR Saunders PE Phillips M Mitchell SM Mckee MD Schemitsch EH Dehghan N

Aims. The aims of this network meta-analysis (NMA) were to examine nonunion rates and functional outcomes following various operative and nonoperative treatments for displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures. Methods. Initial search strategy incorporated MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Four treatment arms were created: nonoperative (NO); intramedullary nailing (IMN); reconstruction plating (RP); and compression/pre-contoured plating (CP). A Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare all treatment options for outcomes of nonunion, malunion, and function using the Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome scores. Results. In all, 19 RCTs consisting of 1,783 clavicle fractures were included in the NMA. All surgical options demonstrated a significantly lower odds ratio (OR) of nonunion in comparison to nonoperative management: CP versus NO (OR 0.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.17); IMN versus NO (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.19); RP versus NO (OR 0.07; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.24). Compression plating was the only treatment to demonstrate significantly lower DASH scores relative to NO at six weeks (mean difference -10.97; 95% CI -20.69 to 1.47). Conclusion. Surgical fixation demonstrated a lower risk of nonunion compared to nonoperative management. Compression plating resulted in significantly less disability early after surgery compared to nonoperative management. These results demonstrate possible early improved functional outcomes with compression plating compared to nonoperative treatment. Surgical fixation of mid-shaft clavicle fractures with compression plating may result in quicker return to activity by rendering patients less disabled early after surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):646–654


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 3 | Pages 227 - 235
18 Mar 2024
Su Y Wang Y Fang C Tu Y Chang C Kuan F Hsu K Shih C

Aims. The optimal management of posterior malleolar ankle fractures, a prevalent type of ankle trauma, is essential for improved prognosis. However, there remains a debate over the most effective surgical approach, particularly between screw and plate fixation methods. This study aims to investigate the differences in outcomes associated with these fixation techniques. Methods. We conducted a comprehensive review of clinical trials comparing anteroposterior (A-P) screws, posteroanterior (P-A) screws, and plate fixation. Two investigators validated the data sourced from multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science). Following PRISMA guidelines, we carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using visual analogue scale and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included range of motion limitations, radiological outcomes, and complication rates. Results. The NMA encompassed 13 studies, consisting of four randomized trials and eight retrospective ones. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve-based ranking, the A-P screw was ranked highest for improvements in AOFAS and exhibited lowest in infection and peroneal nerve injury incidence. The P-A screws, on the other hand, excelled in terms of VAS score improvements. Conversely, posterior buttress plate fixation showed the least incidence of osteoarthritis grade progression, postoperative articular step-off ≥ 2 mm, nonunions, and loss of ankle dorsiflexion ≥ 5°, though it underperformed in most other clinical outcomes. Conclusion. The NMA suggests that open plating is more likely to provide better radiological outcomes, while screw fixation may have a greater potential for superior functional and pain results. Nevertheless, clinicians should still consider the fragment size and fracture pattern, weighing the advantages of rigid biomechanical fixation against the possibility of soft-tissue damage, to optimize treatment results. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):227–235


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 3, Issue 9 | Pages 701 - 709
2 Sep 2022
Thompson H Brealey S Cook E Hadi S Khan SHM Rangan A

Aims

To achieve expert clinical consensus in the delivery of hydrodilatation for the treatment of primary frozen shoulder to inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation.

Methods

We conducted a two-stage, electronic questionnaire-based, modified Delphi survey of shoulder experts in the UK NHS. Round one required positive, negative, or neutral ratings about hydrodilatation. In round two, each participant was reminded of their round one responses and the modal (or ‘group’) response from all participants. This allowed participants to modify their responses in round two. We proposed respectively mandating or encouraging elements of hydrodilatation with 100% and 90% positive consensus, and respectively disallowing or discouraging with 90% and 80% negative consensus. Other elements would be optional.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 2, Issue 9 | Pages 773 - 784
1 Sep 2021
Rex SS Kottam L McDaid C Brealey S Dias J Hewitt CE Keding A Lamb SE Wright K Rangan A

Aims

This systematic review places a recently completed multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT), UK FROST, in the context of existing randomized evidence for the management of primary frozen shoulder. UK FROST compared the effectiveness of pre-specified physiotherapy techniques with a steroid injection (PTSI), manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) with a steroid injection, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR). This review updates a 2012 review focusing on the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, hydrodilatation, and PTSI.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, Science Citation Index, Clinicaltrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry were searched up to December 2018. Reference lists of included studies were screened. No language restrictions applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, PTSI, and hydrodilatation against each other, or supportive care or no treatment, for the management of primary frozen shoulder.