Enhanced recovery after surgery is gaining popularity among orthopaedic surgeons across the globe and hence a strong evidence base had to be reviewed to make an evidence-based sustainable protocol. Methods The following databases, PubMed, OVID, Cochrane database and EMBASE were searched. The search was limited to 15 components of enhanced recovery after surgery programme which is divided into preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative phases. Inclusion criteria were restricted to articles published in English within the last 15 years and articles comprising of unicompartmental arthroplasty, revision knee arthroplasty, bilateral simultaneous knee arthroplasty and only hip arthroplasty excluded. The full texts were analysed and controversies and limitations of various studies were summarised. Discussion Each component of the programme was thoroughly reviewed and strength and weaknesses of the evidence base summarised. The strength of the evidence was assessed by critically appraising the study methodology and justifying the appropriateness of the inclusion in enhanced recovery after surgery protocol. Conclusion Enhanced recovery after surgery has already been used successfully in various surgical specialities. Enhanced recovery after surgery programmes in knee arthroplasty are yet to be established as a universal practice to be adopted globally. This evidence-based review provides an insight into the best evidence linked to each component and their rationale for inclusion in the proposed enhanced recovery after surgery protocol.

No abstract

Background: Fibular- and tibiofibular-based reconstructions are the gold standard treatment for posterolateral corner (PLC) injuries of the knee. Despite comparable outcomes in biomechanical studies, clinical results comparing these constructs remain elusive with no consensus reached regarding the best treatment option. Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare fibular- and tibiofibular-based techniques for posterolateral corner reconstruction. We aimed to identify whether any differences existed between the 2 techniques in terms of clinical outcomes and rotational and varus stability. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, PubMed, Medline, and Embase were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria with the following search terms (“posterolateral corner” OR “fibular collateral ligament” OR “lateral collateral ligament” OR “popliteus tendon” OR “popliteofibular ligament”) AND (“reconstruction” OR “LaPrade” OR “Larson” OR “Arciero”). Data pertaining to all patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), postoperative complications, and valgus and rotational stability were extracted from each study. The pooled outcome data were analyzed by random- and fixed-effects models. Results: After abstract and full-text screening, 6 clinical studies were included. In total, there were 183 patients, of which 90 received fibular-based and 93 tibiofibular-based reconstruction. The majority of studies used similar surgical techniques regarding tunnel orientation, attachment sites, and graft fixation sequence. There were no differences between the groups in terms of PROMs and subjective knee scores at a mean of 20.3 months. The techniques were equally effective in restoring varus and rotational stability. Subgroup analysis revealed that the stability of a posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction postoperatively was not affected by either construct. Conclusion: Both constructs had comparable clinical outcomes and were equally effective in restoring varus and rotational stability for PLC knee injuries. The fibular-based technique may offer advantages in view of being less technically demanding and invasive and requiring fewer grafts with a quicker operative time. However, higher quality studies are required to reinforce or refute such conclusions, as the majority of studies in this review were poor to fair quality.

No abstract

No abstract