Aims. To systematically review the predominant complication rates and changes to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation for shoulder instability. Methods. This systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO, involved a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Key search terms included “allograft”, “shoulder”, “humerus”, and “glenoid”. The review encompassed 37 studies with 456 patients, focusing on primary outcomes like failure rates and secondary outcomes such as PROMs and functional test results. Results. A meta-analysis of primary outcomes across 17 studies revealed a dislocation rate of 5.1% and an increase in reoperation rates from 9.3% to 13.7% post-publication bias adjustment. There was also a noted rise in conversion to total shoulder arthroplasty and incidence of osteoarthritis/osteonecrosis over longer follow-up periods. Patient-reported outcomes and functional tests generally showed improvement, albeit with notable variability across studies. A concerning observation was the consistent presence of allograft resorption, with rates ranging from 33% to 80%. Comparative studies highlighted similar efficacy between distal tibial allografts and Latarjet procedures in most respects, with some differences in specific tests. Conclusion. OCA transplantation presents a promising treatment option for shoulder instability, effectively addressing both glenoid and humeral head defects with favourable patient-reported outcomes. These findings advocate for the inclusion of OCA transplantation in treatment protocols for shoulder instability, while also emphasizing the need for further high-quality, long-term research to better understand the procedure’s efficacy profile. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):570–580

Aims. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA) in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries, regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and risk of secondary surgery. The aim was to conclusively determine the best available treatment based on the most complete and recent evidence available. Methods. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus. Additionally, ongoing trial registers and reference lists of included articles were screened. Risk of bias (RoB) and level of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The random and fixed-effect models were used for the statistical analysis. Results. A total of 20 studies were selected for this review, of which 12 were comparative studies fit for meta-analysis, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This resulted in a total analyzed population of 392 patients treated with ORIF and 249 patients treated with PA. The mean differences between the two groups in American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), VAS, and SF-36 scores were -7.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) -13.31 to -1.51), 0.77 (95% CI -0.85 to 2.39), and -1.20 (95% CI -3.86 to 1.46), respectively. Conclusion. This is the first study to find a statistically significant difference in PROMs, as measured by the AOFAS score, in favour of PA for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. However, this difference may not be clinically relevant, and therefore drawing a definitive conclusion requires confirmation by a large prospective high-quality RCT. Such a study should also assess cost-effectiveness, as cost considerations might be decisive in decision-making. Level of Evidence: I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):842–849

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of home-based prehabilitation on pre- and postoperative outcomes in participants awaiting total knee (TKA) and hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

It is important to understand the rate of complications associated with the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. Currently, this has not been well quantified. This review aims to address that deficiency with a focus on complication and reoperation rates, shoulder outcome scores, and comparison of anatomical and reverse prostheses when used in revision surgery.