No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) has been used more recently in the therapeutic protocols of pain managements. Adding therapeutic interventions to laser therapy is usual in clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of HILT and beneficial effects of adding cointerventions to HILT in musculoskeletal pain management. Methods: The following databases were searched up to August 2018: Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Springer and ISI. The keywords of pain, HILT, high power laser therapy, laser therapy, photobiomodulation, physical therapy and rehabilitation were searched. The quality of the articles was assessed using the PEDro scale. The primary measure was pain severity expected to be reported in all studies. Effect size was calculated as standardized mean differences divided by the standard deviation of either the treatment or other group. Results: Initially 52 potential studies were found. Eighteen of these studies were excluded based on title and abstract. The full text of 34 remaining articles was screened and 15 of the studies were excluded. All included studies had high quality (PEDro ≥7). Approximately, 94% of included articles (n=18) revealed positive effects of HILT on pain. The effect sizes for HILT and placebo/comparator groups were 0.9-9.11 and 0.21-11.22 respectively. Also, the differences of effect size between two groups were between 0.03 to 5.85. Conclusion: It is early to determine that HILT may be an effective non-invasive agent in the management of musculoskeletal pain, as few studies have shown its clinical efficacy. Adding related co-interventions to HILT may enhance the beneficial effects of laser therapy. The variability of the study methods and outcomes suggests that further long-term follow-up, randomized controlled clinical trials with appropriate methodological design are needed regarding the effectiveness of HILT on pain.

The goal of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to provide an overview of the prevalence of surgical wound infection and related factors in patients after long bone surgery. A comprehensive, systematic search was conducted in different international electronic databases, such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science and Persian electronic databases such as Iranmedex and Scientific Information Database using keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings such as “Prevalence”, “Surgical wound infection”, “Surgical site infection” and “Orthopedics” from the earliest to the May 1, 2023. The appraisal tool for cross‐sectional studies (AXIS tool) evaluates the quality of the included studies. A total of 71 854 patients undergoing long bone surgery participated in 12 studies. The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in patients who underwent long bone surgery reported in the 12 studies was 3.3% (95% CI: 1.5%–7.2%; I2 = 99.39%; p < 0.001). The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in male and female patients who underwent long bone surgery was 4.6% (95% CI: 1.7%–11.7%; p < 0.001; I2 = 99.34%) and 2.6% (95% CI: 1.0%–6.3%; I2 = 98.84%; p < 0.001), respectively. The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in patients with femur surgery sites reported in nine studies was 3.7% (95% CI: 2.1–6.4%; I2 = 93.43%; p < 0.001). The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in open and close fractures was 16.4% (95% CI: 8.2%–30.2%; I2 = 95.83%; p < 0.001) and 2.9% (95% CI: 1.5%–5.5%; I2 = 96.40%; p < 0.001), respectively. The pooled prevalence of surgical wound infection in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension (HTN) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) was 4.6% (95% CI: 2.3%–8.9%; I2 = 81.50%; p < 0.001), 2.7% (95% CI: 1.2%–6.0%; I2 = 83.82%; p < 0.001) and 3.0% (95% CI: 1.4%–6.4%; I2 = 69.12%; p = 0.006), respectively. In general, the different prevalence of surgical wound infection in patients undergoing surgical treatment after long bone fracture may be caused by underlying factors (gender and co‐morbidity) and fracture‐related factors (surgery site and type of fracture).

Introduction and importance: Distal humerus fractures comprise between 2 and 5% of all fractures, and approximately one-third of all humerus fractures are of this type. In the present report, the authors described the massive bone defects due to infection at the surgical site associated with a distal humeral fracture that was treated using fibula autograft. Case presentation: A 28-year-old female patient experienced a fall from a height of 4 m and was referred to Poursina Educational and Medical Center. Clinical examinations and radiological imaging showed an open fracture of the right distal humerus. In the postoperative 50-day follow-up, the complication of infection at the surgical site causes bone loss of up to 8 cm. The posterior triceps-split approach (Campbell) to the distal humerus was used in this surgery. To evaluate the quality of surgery, standard radiographs of anteroposterior and lateral of the elbow joint and humeral shaft were performed after surgery. Clinical discussion: At 5 months postoperatively, the patient’s initial results are good, and the range of motion of the elbow joint is ~10–120°. Conclusion: Based on the results of the present study, fibular transplantation in distal humerus fractures is considered one of the bone treatment options for repair.

Introduction Nonunion or delayed union is a known postoperative complication in long bone fractures. Substance abuse may impair bone healing. In this paper, we investigated the effect of narcotics on healing time in femoral shaft transverse fractures and the effect of substance abuse and smoking on postoperative healing time. Material and methods This cohort study was conducted at the Orthopedic Clinic of Poursina Hospital, Rasht from 2017–2019. Patients with transverse fractures of the femoral shaft who underwent intramedullary rod insertion were followed for 6 months. Bone healing time based on substance abuse and smoking status was evaluated. Results There was a significant association between various groups (categorized based on cigarette smoking and using drugs) in terms of bone healing status (P = 0.006). There was a statistically significant difference in healing status among the control group, smoker group, and addict and smoker group (P = 0.034 and P = 0.004, respectively). However, there was no statistically significant difference in healing status between control and addicts group (P = 0.517). Conclusions Treatment efficiency and performance in addicted and smoker patients are more unfavorable and hence which, in turn, requires more follow-up periods; therapies such as bone grafting and other methods are more frequently considered in addicted and smoker patients in case of lack of healing reaction. Therefore, prevention plans in high-risk groups can play a significant role in primary identification, treatment, and reducing the complications of fractures.

Background: Adhesive capsulitis or frozen shoulder is among the most prevalent causes of pain and disability in individuals. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the effect of Photobiomodulation (PBM) on pain, range of motion, and thickness and function of supraspinatus muscle in patients with adhesive capsulitis. Materials & Methods: Overall, 52 subjects (n=26/group) with adhesive capsulitis referring to Poorsina Hospital, physiotherapy ward, Rasht City, Iran, in 2019 participated in this study. They were randomly assigned to 2 groups of control or routine physical therapy and PBM group. The variables were pain (Visual Analogue Scale, VAS), range of motion (goniometer), the supraspinatus muscle thickness in rest and contraction, and muscle function (ultrasonography). The outcomes were examined before, after 5 and 10 sessions, and at a 1-month follow-up. Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the demographic characteristics and studied variables. The interaction of group and time (2×4) was significant for pain (P=0.02). Finally, the Bonferroni post hoc test data indicated the pain reduction in the PBM group was higher than the control group at the follow-up (P=0.03). The mixed two-factor analysis of variance indicated that the interaction of the group and time of shoulder abduction (P=0.6), shoulder external rotation (P=0.46), supraspinatus muscle thickness, rest (P=0.31), supraspinatus muscle thickness, contraction (P=0.11), and rest-contraction (P=0.66) were not significant. Conclusion: The PBM revealed greater analgesic effects than routine physical therapy in the short term and one-month follow-up. However, the effects on a range of motion and muscle thickness and function were insignificant.

The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to provide an overview of the prevalence of pressure ulcers (PU) in orthopaedic wards. A comprehensive, systematic search was conducted in different international electronic databases, such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Persian electronic databases such as Iranmedex, and Scientific Information Database (SID) using keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings such as “Prevalence”, “Pressure ulcer”, “Pressure sore”, and “Orthopaedics” from the earliest to February 1, 2023. The appraisal tool for cross‐sectional studies (AXIS tool) evaluates the quality of the included studies. Finally, 11 studies were included in the final analysis. The results indicated that the prevalence of PU in orthopaedic departments was 18% (ES: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.10–0.26, Z = 4.53, I2: 99.09%). Although the odds ratio of PU was lower in men than women, it was not statistically significant (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.74–1.11, Z = 0.95, I2: 17.4%, P = .34). Also, results showed the prevalence of PU was higher among studies with a sample size of more than 200 (ES: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.10–0.28, Z = 4.07, I2: 99.1%), Europe region (ES: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.14–0.26, Z = 6.7, I2: 93.0%) and prospective design (ES: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.18–0.27, Z = 9.47, I2: 83.3%) when compared with other sub‐groups. In sum, considering the 18% prevalence of PU in the orthopaedic department, it is recommended to focus on detecting risk factors and design interventions to reduce PU in the patients admitted orthopaedic department.