Background Brachial plexus injuries (BPI) cause severe physical disability and major psycho-socioeconomic burden. Although various countries have reported BPI incidence, the data from Indonesia as the fourth most populated country in the world remains unknown. We aim to assess the distribution of traumatic BPI, patients' characteristics, and treatment modalities in Indonesia. Methods A retrospective investigation was performed comprising 491 BPI patients at a tertiary referral hospital in Indonesia from January 2003 to October 2019. Demographic and outcomes data were retrieved from medical records. Results The average BPI patients' age was 27.3 ± 11.6 years old, with a male/female ratio of 4.6:1. Motorcycle accidents caused the majority (76.1%) of all BPI cases. Concomitant injuries were present in 62.3% of patients, dominated by fractures (57.1%) and brain injuries (25.4%). BPI lesion type was classified into complete (C5-T1, observed in 70% patients), upper (C5-C6, in 15% patients), extended upper (C5-C7, in 14% patients), and lower type (C8-T1, in 1% patients). The average time to surgery was 16.8 months (range 1–120 months), with the majority (76.6%) of the patients was operated on six months after the trauma. Free functional muscle transfer (FFMT) was the most common procedure performed (37%). We also analyzed the functional outcomes (active range of motion (AROM) and muscle power), DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) score, and VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) across four most frequent procedures involving nerve reconstruction (FFMT, nerve transfer, external neurolysis, and nerve grafting). We found that FFMT was significantly better than nerve transfer in terms of DASH score and VAS (p = 0.000 and p = 0.016, respectively) in complete BPI (C5-T1). Moreover, we also found that nerve grafting resulted in a significantly better shoulder abduction AROM than nerve transfer and external neurolysis in extended upper BPI (C5-C7) (p = 0.033 and p = 0.033, respectively). Interestingly, no significant differences were observed in other measurements. Conclusion This study provides an overview of traumatic BPI patients in a single tertiary trauma center in Indonesia, expressing the profile of their characteristics and functional outcomes after surgical procedures.
Despite rapid medical technology development, various challenges exist in three- and four-part proximal humeral fracture (PHF) management. This condition has led to a notably increased use of the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA); however, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is still the most widely performed procedure. Thus, these two modalities are crucial and require further discussion. We aim to compare the outcomes of three- or four-part PHF surgeries using ORIF and RTSA based on direct/head-to-head comparative studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the Cochrane handbook and PRISMA guidelines. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Library) from inception to October 2020. Our protocol was registered at PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020214681). We assessed the individual study risk of bias using ROB 2 and ROBINS-I tools, then appraised our evidence using the GRADE approach. Six head-to-head comparative studies were included, comprising one RCT and five retrospective case-control studies. We found that RTSA significantly improved forward flexion but was comparable to ORIF in abduction (p = 0.03 and p = 0.47, respectively) and more inferior in external rotation (p < 0.0001). Moreover, RTSA improved the overall Constant-Murley score, but the difference was not significant (p = 0.22). Interestingly, RTSA increased complications (by 42%) but reduced the revision surgery rates (by 63%) compared to ORIF (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively). RTSA is recommended to treat patients aged 65 years or older with a three- or four-part PHF. Compared to ORIF, RTSA resulted in better forward flexion and Constant-Murley score, equal abduction, less external rotation, increased complications but fewer revision surgeries. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:941-955. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210049
Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective: Various methods of pedicle screw (PS) placement in spinal fusion surgery existed, which can be grouped into conventional freehand (FH), modified freehand (MF), and image-guided methods (including fluoroscopy-based navigation (FL), computed tomography-based navigation (CT-nav), robot-assisted (RA), and ultrasound-guided (UG)). However, the literature showed mixed findings regarding their accuracy and complications. This review aimed to discover which method of PS placement has the highest accuracy and lowest complication rate in pediatric and adolescent spinal fusion surgery. Methods: A comprehensive search in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (OVID), CENTRAL, and Web of Science was conducted until May 2020 by 2 independent reviewers, followed by bias assessment with ROB 2 and ROBINS-I tools and quantification with meta-analysis. Overall evidence quality was determined with GRADE tool. Results: Four RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs/CCTs comprising 3,830 PS placed in 291 patients (4-22 years old) were analyzed. The lowest accuracy was found in FH (78.35%) while the highest accuracy was found in MF (95.86%). MF was more accurate than FH (OR 3.34 (95% CI, 2.33-4.79), P < .00 001, I2 = 0%). Three-dimensional printed drill template (as part of MF) was more accurate than FH (OR 3.10 (95% CI, 1.98-4.86), P < .00 001, I2 = 14%). Overall, complications occurred in 5.84% of the patients with 0.34% revision rate. Complication events in MF was lower compared to FH (OR 0.47 (95% CI, 0.10-2.15), P = .33, I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Meta-analysis shows that MF is more accurate than FH in pediatric and adolescent requiring PS placement for spinal fusion surgery.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.