Aims. The value of core decompression (CD) in the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether CD combined with other treatments could improve the clinical and radiological outcomes of ONFH patients compared with CD alone. Methods. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until June 2020. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) comparing CD alone and CD combined with other measures (CD + cell therapy, CD + bone grafting, CD + porous tantalum rod, etc.) for the treatment of ONFH were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes of interest were Harris Hip Score (HHS), ONFH stage progression, structural failure (collapse) of the femoral head, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The pooled data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 software. Results. A total of 20 studies with 2,123 hips were included (CD alone = 768, CD combined with other treatments = 1,355). The combination of CD with other therapeutic interventions resulted in a higher HHS (mean difference (MD) = 6.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.10 to 10.83, p = 0.004) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score (MD = −10.92, 95% CI = -21.41 to -4.03, p = 0.040) and a lower visual analogue scale (VAS) score (MD = −0.99, 95% CI = -1.56 to -0.42, p < 0.001) than CD alone. For the rates of disease stage progression, 91 (20%) progressed in the intervention group compared to 146 (36%) in the control group (odds ratio (OR) = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.64, p = 0.001). In addition, the intervention group had a more significant advantage in delaying femoral head progression to the collapsed stage (OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.61, p < 0.001) and reducing the odds of conversion to THA (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.55, p < 0.001) compared to the control group. There were no serious
Open lower limb fracture is a life-changing injury affecting 11.5 per 100,000 adults each year, and causes significant morbidity and resource demand on trauma infrastructures. This study aims to identify what, and how, outcomes have been reported for people following open lower limb fracture over ten years. Systematic literature searches identified all clinical studies reporting outcomes for adults following open lower limb fracture between January 2009 and July 2019. All outcomes and outcome measurement instruments were extracted verbatim. An iterative process was used to group outcome terms under standardized outcome headings categorized using an outcome taxonomy.Aims
Methods
The aims of this study were to identify and evaluate the current literature examining the prognostic factors which are associated with failure of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). Electronic literature searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane. All studies reporting prognostic estimates for factors associated with the revision of a primary TEA were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. Due to low quality of the evidence and the heterogeneous nature of the studies, a narrative synthesis was used.Aims
Methods
A systematic literature review focusing on how long before surgery concurrent viral or bacterial infections (respiratory and urinary infections) should be treated in hip fracture patients, and if there is evidence for delaying this surgery. A total of 11 databases were examined using the COre, Standard, Ideal (COSI) protocol. Bibliographic searches (no chronological or linguistic restriction) were conducted using, among other methods, the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) template. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for flow diagram and checklist. Final reading of the complete texts was conducted in English, French, and Spanish. Classification of papers was completed within five levels of evidence (LE).Aims
Methods
