Efort Open Reviews最新文献

The cavovarus deformity is a pathological condition characterised by an anomalous elevation of the longitudinal arch. This condition results from a significant hindfoot varus and forefoot equinus deformity. This phenomenon comprises diverse anomalies and therapies and exhibits a prevalence of 25% within the populace. A thorough clinical evaluation is required to identify deformities in the cavovarus foot. Weight-bearing radiographs play a crucial role in identifying the apex of deformity and quantifying the required extent of correction. Cavus feet are frequently linked with neurological conditions affecting sensory and motor nerves. Identifying the optimal treatment for individual patients necessitates the performance of clinical and radiographic evaluations. Inaccurate diagnosis of a neurological disorder can lead to inappropriate surgical intervention, relapse, and inadequate reconstruction. When faced with progressive anomalies, it is crucial to implement a phased surgical protocol promptly to avoid exacerbating malalignment. Various surgical procedures have been recorded, including soft tissue releases, tendon transfers, osteotomies, and arthrodesis, which are selected based on the nature and extent of the deformity assessment findings, with the ultimate goal of reaching a foot that is both plantigrade and balanced. Due to a lack of research on this topic, the present review aims to furnish the most recent literature update on the manifestation, imaging evaluation, and optimal therapeutic interventions currently accessible for individuals afflicted with cavovarus deformities and to assist healthcare providers in selecting the most suitable therapy for paediatric patients with this condition in their routine clinical practice.

Surgical intervention is the treatment of choice for recurrent lateral patellar instability. Surgery should be considered for first time lateral patella dislocations with osteochondral fractures or underlying anatomical risk factors. Primary repair and nonanatomical imbrications/reconstructions have fallen out of favor due to abnormal biomechanics and high rates of recurrence. Anatomical reconstruction of the MPFL using a variety of auto and allograft tissues have yielded good outcomes and low redislocation rates. Physeal sparing MPFL reconstruction techniques under radiological control are safe and do not cause growth disturbance. Allografts may be indicated for hyperlax patients. Although no clear cutoff points exist, correction of valgus and excessive femoral anteversion should be considered when indicated. Osteochondral and chondral injuries are common and should be addressed during surgery for instability.

Background: Loosening is a major cause for failure of total hip and total knee arthroplasties (THAs/TKAs). Preemptive diagnostics of asymptomatic loosening could open strategies to prevent gross loosening. A multitude of biomarkers may discriminate between loosened and stable implants, but it is unknown which have the best performance. The present systematic review aimed to assess which biomarkers have shown the most promising results in discriminating between stable and aseptic loosened THAs and TKAs.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Academic Search Premier were systematically searched up to January 2020 for studies including THA/TKA and biomarkers to assess loosening. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the ICROMS tool to classify the quality of the studies.

Results: Twenty-eight (three high-quality) studies were included, reporting on a median of 48 patients (interquartile range 28-69). Serum and urine markers were evaluated in 22 and 10 studies, respectively. Tumor necrosis factor α and osteocalcin were significantly higher in loosened compared with stable implants. Urinary N-terminal telopeptide had significantly elevated levels in loosened prostheses.

Conclusion: Several serum and urine markers were promising in discriminating between loosened and stable implants. We recommend future studies to evaluate these biomarkers in a longitudinal fashion to assess whether progression of loosening is associated with a change in these biomarkers. In particular, high-quality studies assessing the usability of these biomarkers are needed.

Introduction: Acute compartment syndrome (ACS) is an orthopedic emergency that may lead to devastating sequelae. Diagnosis may be difficult. The aim of this systematic review is to identify clinical and radiological risk factors for ACS occurrence in tibial fractures.

Methods: PubMed® database was searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Additional articles were found by a manual research of selected references and authors' known articles.

Results: The identification process individualized 2758 via database and 30 via other methods. After screening and eligibility assessment, 29 articles were included. Age, gender, occupation, comorbidities, medications, habits, polytrauma, multiple injuries, mechanism, sports, site, open vs closed, contiguous lesion, classification, and pattern were found to be related to ACS occurrence.

Conclusions: Younger age and male gender are strong independent risk factors in tibial plateau and shaft fractures. High-energy fractures, polytrauma, more proximal fractures and fractures with contiguous skeletal lesions are aggravating risk factors; higher AO/OTA and Schatzker classification types, increased displacement of the tibia relative to the femur, and increased tibial joint surface width are associated risk factors in tibial plateau fractures; higher AO Foundation/Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification types and subgroups and more proximal fractures within the diaphysis are associated risk factors in tibial shaft fracture. Open fractures do not prevent ACS occurrence. Increased fracture length is the only factor suggesting a higher risk of ACS in tibial pilon fractures. The presence of each independent predictor may have a cumulative effect increasing the risk of ACS occurrence.

Patients undergoing planned or unplanned orthopaedic procedures involving their upper or lower extremity can prevent them from safe and timely return to driving, where they commonly ask, 'Doctor, when can I drive?' Driving recommendations after such procedures are varied. The current evidence available is based on a heterogenous data set with varying degrees of sample size and markedly differing study designs. This instructional review article provides a scoping overview of studies looking at return to driving after upper or lower extremity surgery in both trauma and elective settings and, where possible, to provide clinical recommendations for return to driving. Medline, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases were searched according to a defined search protocol to elicit eligible studies. Articles were included if they reviewed adult drivers who underwent upper or lower extremity orthopaedic procedures, were written in English, and offered recommendations about driving. A total of 68 articles were included in the analysis, with 36 assessing the lower extremity and 37 reviewing the upper extremity. The evidence available from the studies reviewed was of poor methodological quality. There was a lack of adequately powered, high quality, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with large sample sizes to assess safe return to driving for differing subset of injuries. Many articles provide generic guidelines on return to driving when patients feel safe to perform an emergency stop procedure with adequate steering wheel control. In future, RCTs should be performed to develop definitive return to driving protocols in patients undergoing upper and lower extremity procedures.

Purpose: The aim of the study was to quantify motor cortex descending drive and voluntary activation (VA) in people with lower-limb OA compared to controls.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines was carried out. Seven databases were searched until 30 December 2022. Studies assessing VA or responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS; i.e. motor evoked potential, intracortical facilitation, motor threshold, short-interval intracortical inhibition, and silent period) were included. Study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute criteria and evidence certainty using GRADE. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan inverse variance, mixed-effect models.

Results: Eighteen studies were included, all deemed low-quality. Quadriceps VA was impaired with knee OA compared to healthy controls (standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.84, 95% CI = -1.12-0.56, low certainty). VA of the more symptomatic limb was impaired (SMD = 0.42, 95% CI = -0.75-0.09, moderate certainty) compared to the other limb in people with hip/knee OA. As only two studies assessed responses to TMS, very low-certainty evidence demonstrated no significant difference between knee OA and healthy controls for motor evoked potential, intracortical facilitation, resting motor threshold or short-interval intracortical inhibition.

Conclusions: Low-certainty evidence suggests people with knee OA have substantial impairments in VA of their quadriceps muscle when compared to healthy controls. With moderate certainty we conclude that people with hip and knee OA had larger impairments in VA of the quadriceps in their more painful limb compared to their non-affected/other limb.

Denosumab is a fully humanised monoclonal antibody to RANK ligand, inhibiting the RANK-RANKL pathway. It promotes the apoptosis of osteoclast-like giant cells, a secondary ossification and connective tissue formation. Given its high efficacy, denosumab is the standard treatment of unresectable or metastatic giant cell tumour of bone (GCTB) requiring morbid surgery. Neoadjuvant administration of denosumab may be justified to enable the resection of the tumour in certain cases; it should be considered, however, with caution for joint-saving surgery due to high local recurrence rates. In cases of unresectable or metastatic GCTB, however, denosumab treatment should be administered for years or even as a lifelong therapy. This poses many yet unanswered questions concerning the frequency of denosumab treatment as well as the ratio of the adverse events in the following years. Denosumab suppresses, not directly targets, the neoplastic stromal cells of GCTB. Ongoing in vitro studies suggest that other drugs alone or in combination (e.g. sunitinib) with denosumab may target both the neoplastic and the giant cells. Promising results have been reported regarding the off-label use of denosumab in other giant cell-rich tumours/tumour-like lesions, i.e. aneurysmal bone cysts and central giant cell granulomas. Data are derived, however, mostly from case reports and case series. Large prospective clinical trials are needed to evaluate the role and also the side effects of denosumab in the treatment of these rare diseases.