Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background Uncertainty exists regarding the best treatment for acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Simultaneous comparison of the multiple treatment options using traditional study designs is problematic; multiarm clinical trials often are logistically constrained to small sample sizes, and traditional meta-analyses are limited to comparisons of only two treatments that have been compared in head-to-head trials. Network meta-analyses allow for simultaneous comparison of all existing treatments utilizing both direct (head-to-head comparison) and indirect (not previously compared head-to-head) evidence. Questions/purposes We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to answer the following questions: Considering open repair, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) repair, functional rehabilitation, or primary immobilization for acute Achilles tendon ruptures, (1) which intervention is associated with the lowest risk of rerupture? (2) Which intervention is associated with the lowest risk of complications resulting in surgery? Methods This study was conducted with methods guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and is reported in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension statement for incorporating network meta-analysis. Five databases and grey literature sources (such as major orthopaedic meeting presentation lists) were searched from inception to September 30, 2019. Included studies were RCTs comparing treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures using two or more of the following interventions: primary immobilization, functional rehabilitation, open surgical repair, or MIS repair. We excluded studies enrolling patients with chronic ruptures, reruptures, and preexisting Achilles tendinopathy as well as studies with more than 20% loss to follow-up or less than 6 months of follow-up. Nineteen RCTs (1316 patients) were included in the final analysis. The mean number of patients per study treatment arm was 35 ± 16, mean age was 41 ± 5 years, mean sex composition was 80% ± 10% males, and mean follow-up was 22 ± 12 months. The four treatment groups were compared for the main outcomes of rerupture and complications resulting in operation. The analysis was conducted using random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis with vague priors. Evidence quality was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. We found risk of selection, attrition, and reporting bias to be low across treatments, and we found the risk of performance and detection bias to be high. Overall risk of bias between treatments appeared similar. Results We found that treatment with primary immobilization had a greater risk of rerupture than open surgery (odds ratio 4.06 [95% credible interval {CrI} 1.47 to 11.88]; p < 0.05). There were no other differences between treatments for risk of rerupture. Minimally invasive surgery was ranked first for fewest complications resulting in surgery and was associated with a lower risk of complications resulting in surgery than functional rehabilitation (OR 0.16 [95% CrI 0.02 to 0.90]; p < 0.05), open surgery (OR 0.22 [95% CrI 0.04 to 0.93]; p < 0.05), and primary immobilization (OR < 0.01 [95% CrI < 0.01 to 0.01]; p < 0.05). Risk of complications resulting in surgery was no different between primary immobilization and open surgery (OR 1.46 [95% CrI 0.35 to 5.36]). Data for patient-reported outcome scores and return to activity were inappropriate for pooling secondary to considerable clinical heterogeneity and imprecision associated with small sample sizes. Conclusion Faced with acute Achilles tendon rupture, patients should be counseled that, based on the best-available evidence, the risk of rerupture likely is no different across contemporary treatments. Considering the possibly lower risk of complications resulting in surgery associated with MIS repair, patients and surgeons must balance any benefit with the potential risks of MIS techniques. As treatments continue to evolve, consistent reporting of validated patient-reported outcome measures is critically important to facilitate analysis with existing RCT evidence. Infrequent but serious complications such as rerupture and deep infection should be further explored to determine whether meaningful differences exist in specific patient populations. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study.

Background: Delaminated acetabular cartilage is a common finding in patients undergoing surgical dislocation or hip arthroscopy in the treatment of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Current treatment involves resection of the free cartilage flap with or without acetabular rim trimming. The viability of the delaminated cartilage flap is not known. We sought to examine if the acetabular cartilage still has viable cartilage cells and, if so, what type of cartilage is present. Methods:We examined the delaminated cartilage flaps from patients undergoing surgical dislocation and osteochondroplasty for symptomatic cam-type impingement. We performed hematoxylin and eosin staining and histological analysis using light microscopy to determine cartilage viability and cartilage type. Results:We examined 12 delaminated cartilage flaps from 11 patients (10 men, 1 woman, average age 30.1 yr). Ninety percent chondrocyte viability was confirmed in 11 of 12 flaps. Six of 12 flaps were composed predominantly of hyaline cartilage, 4 were a mixed population of fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage and 2 were predominantly fibrocartilage. Conclusion:Our findings suggest that the delaminated cartilage flap in patients with femoroacetabular impingement may retain a large amount of viable chondrocytes. Development of surgical techniques focusing on refixation of this flap as an alternative to excision and microfracture should be considered.

BackgroundAchilles tendon ruptures are a common injury and are increasing in incidence. Several management strategies exist for both non-operative and operative care, with each strategy offering unique risks and benefits. Traditional pairwise meta-analyses have been performed to compare management strategies; however, all treatment options have never been integrated in a single analysis. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a generalization of pairwise meta-analysis, which allows for the comparison of multiple interventions based on all available direct and indirect evidence. The objectives of this review are to synthesize the evidence on the management options for acute Achilles tendon rupture and identify which treatment gives the best functional outcomes.MethodsA systematic review with NMA is planned. An electronic literature search will be performed in conjunction with an experienced information specialist in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include randomized controlled trials with a minimum 6-month follow-up. Two independent reviewers will screen citations for eligibility, extract study data, and perform risk of bias assessments. The primary outcome will be disease-specific functional outcome scores (AOFAS, Leppilahti, modified Leppilahti) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes will include complications (re-rupture, sural nerve injury, wound complications, deep infection, secondary surgeries), strength, range of motion, return to work, return to sport, and quality-of-life measures (including the SF-36 questionnaire). Traditional pairwise meta-analyses will be performed for all direct comparisons where evidence is available, and NMAs will subsequently be performed where possible to compare all management strategies.DiscussionThe data generated from this review will provide health-care providers with a clear evidence synthesis of all Achilles tendon rupture management strategies. Additionally, these data will be incorporated into the development of a patient decision aid to assist patients and clinicians in making a preference-based decision when faced with an Achilles tendon rupture.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018093033.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0912-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Category: Sports; Trauma Introduction/Purpose: Uncertainty exists regarding the best treatment for acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Simultaneous comparison of the multiple treatment options using traditional study designs is problematic; multiarm clinical trials often are logistically constrained to small sample sizes, and traditional meta-analyses are limited to comparisons of only two treatments that have been compared in head-to-head trials. Network meta-analyses allow for simultaneous comparison of all existing treatments utilizing both direct and indirect evidence. We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to answer the following questions: Considering open repair, minimally invasive surgery repair, functional rehabilitation, or primary immobilization for acute Achilles tendon ruptures, (1) which intervention is associated with the lowest risk of rerupture? (2) Which intervention is associated with the lowest risk of complications resulting in surgery? Methods: Five databases and grey literature sources were searched from inception to September 30, 2019. Included studies were RCTs comparing treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures using two or more of the following interventions: primary immobilization, functional rehabilitation, open surgical repair, or MIS repair. We excluded studies enrolling patients with chronic ruptures, reruptures, and preexisting Achilles tendinopathy as well as studies with more than 20% loss to follow-up or less than 6 months of follow-up. Nineteen RCTs (1316 patients) were included in the final analysis. The mean number of patients per study treatment arm was 35 +- 16, mean age was 41 +- 5 years, mean sex composition was 80% +- 10% males, and mean follow-up was 22 +- 12 months. The four treatment groups were compared for the main outcomes of rerupture and complications resulting in operation. The analysis was conducted using random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis with vague priors. Results: Treatment with primary immobilization had a greater risk of rerupture than open surgery (odds ratio 4.06 [95% credible interval {CrI} 1.47 to 11.88]; p < 0.05). There were no other differences between treatments for risk of rerupture. Minimally invasive surgery was ranked first for fewest complications resulting in surgery and was associated with a lower risk of complications resulting in surgery than functional rehabilitation (OR 0.16 [95% CrI 0.02 to 0.90]; p < 0.05), open surgery (OR 0.22 [95% CrI 0.04 to 0.93]; p < 0.05), and primary immobilization (OR < 0.01 [95% CrI < 0.01 to 0.01]; p < 0.05). Risk of complications resulting in surgery was no different between primary immobilization and open surgery (OR 1.46 [95% CrI 0.35 to 5.36]). Data for patient-reported outcome scores and return to activity were inappropriate for pooling secondary to considerable clinical heterogeneity and imprecision associated with small sample sizes. Conclusion: Faced with acute Achilles tendon rupture, patients should be counseled that the risk of rerupture likely is no different across contemporary treatments. Considering the possibly lower risk of complications resulting in surgery associated with MIS repair, patients and surgeons must balance any benefit with the potential risks of MIS techniques. As treatments continue to evolve, consistent reporting of validated patient-reported outcome measures is critically important to facilitate analysis with existing RCT evidence. Infrequent but serious complications such as rerupture and deep infection should be further explored to determine whether meaningful differences exist in specific patient populations.

Background: Increasing strain on public health resources in Canada, in particular with respect to accessing specialist care, necessitates the exploration of alternative models of care. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of electronic consultation (eConsult) in providing orthopedic surgery specialist service to patients in the Champlain Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) of Ontario.Methods: This was a cross-sectional review of all 564 Champlain LHIN orthopedic surgery referral requests received via the Champlain Building Access to Specialist service through the eConsult (BASE) system in 2017. Primary outcome measures were impact on primary care provider (PCP) referral pattern and time to receive orthopedic consultation.Results: eConsult prevented unnecessary in-person consultation 64% of the time, while PCP referral decisions were modified 51% of the time. Of all eConsults, 94% were rated as valuable to PCPs in their practice and 97% of eConsults resulted in actionable advice. eConsults took an average of 14.5 minutes of specialist time to complete, and the mean time from referral to response was 3.7 days. Conclusion:The eConsult system spares unnecessary consultation to orthopedic surgery; catches important referrals that would have otherwise been missed; saves time for patients, PCPs and orthopedic surgeons; and improves efficiency in a socialized health care system.

No abstract

Objectives: Posterior malleolus (PM) fractures are common in rotational ankle injuries, tibial plafond fractures, and distal third tibia fractures. Surgical indications continue to evolve as we improve our understanding of ankle and syndesmotic stability. These fractures remain technically challenging with respect to both exposure and fixation. Our biomechanical cadaveric study compared posterolateral versus modified posteromedial surgical approaches to define the following: maximal surface area exposed, and maximal screw trajectory obtainable for fixation. Methods: Twelve fresh-frozen cadaver limbs were thawed at room temperature. Posterolateral and modified posteromedial approaches were performed on each limb. Margins of exposure were marked. A 2.5 mm drill was advanced at the extreme medial and lateral extents of each exposure, standardized at 1 cm proximal to the joint line and perpendicular to the bone. Computed tomography (CT) scans were performed to identify the maximal trajectory. Limbs were stripped of soft tissue, and the exposed bony surface area was measured using a validated laser surface-scanning technique. Results: The modified posteromedial approach allowed for a larger exposed surface area compared to the posterolateral exposure (median 99% vs 64%, respectively; P < .05). The modified posteromedial approach allowed for instrumentation of up to a median of 77% of the posterior distal tibia as opposed to 46% through the posterolateral approach (P < .05). Conclusion: The modified posteromedial approach allowed for increased exposure and wider access for instrumentation of the PM when compared to the posterolateral approach. We advocate use of this approach when addressing complex PM fractures, in particular the Haraguchi type 2 fracture pattern.