4.

No abstract

No abstract

PurposeTo determine whether supplementation with turmeric or curcumin extract effects pain and physical function in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Second, we investigated the therapeutic response (pain and function) of turmeric compared with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).MethodsA search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Review. Inclusion criteria included randomised controlled trials reporting pain and physical function in humans with knee OA comparing turmeric therapy with NSAIDs or no therapy. Two reviewers screened 5273 abstracts. Risk of bias and quality were assessed via Cochrane Collaboration tool and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010, respectively.ResultsTen studies were included in the final analysis. Eight had high methodological quality and two were categorised as good with a mean CONSORT quality score of 21.1. Nine studies had adequate sequence generation and six had adequate allocation concealment. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded in eight studies. Three of the studies compared turmeric therapy to NSAIDs. All 10 studies showed improvement in pain and function from baseline with turmeric therapy (p≤0.05). In three studies comparing turmeric to NSAIDs, there were no differences in outcome scores (p>0.05). In all studies there were no significant adverse events in the turmeric therapy group.ConclusionCompared with placebo, there appears to be a benefit of turmeric on knee OA pain and function. Based on a small number of studies the effects are similar to that of NSAIDs. Variables such as optimal dosing, frequency and formulation remain unclear at this time.

Background: Quadriceps tendon (QT)–bone autografts used during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction have provided comparable outcomes and decreased donor-site morbidity when compared with bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autografts. No study has directly compared the outcomes of the all–soft tissue QT autograft with that of the BPTB autograft. Hypothesis: Patient-reported knee outcome scores and rates of postoperative complication after primary ACL reconstruction with QT autografts are no different from BPTB autografts at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 75 patients who underwent primary autograft ACL reconstruction with QT or BPTB autografts between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016, at a single hospital center were contacted by telephone and asked to complete the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation, Tegner activity level scale, and Lysholm knee scoring scale. Information about the subsequent surgeries performed on the operative knee was also collected. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Fisher exact test for categorical data. Results: Fifty patients (28 QT, 22 BPTB) completed the surveys at a mean follow-up of 33.04 months (range, 24-44 months). For the QT versus the BPTB group respectively, the median IKDC scores were 94.83 (interquartile range [IQR], 7.61) versus 94.83 (IQR, 10.92) ( P = .47), the median Tegner scores were 6 (IQR, 2.5) versus 6 (IQR, 2.75) ( P = .48), and the median Lysholm scores were 95 (IQR, 9) versus 95 (IQR, 13) ( P = .27). Additionally, 2 QT patients and 3 BPTB patients required follow-up arthroscopy for arthrolysis ( P = .64). There was 1 graft failure in the QT group requiring revision surgery. Conclusion: There was no statistical difference in patient-reported knee outcomes or graft complication rates between the QT and BPTB autograft groups at a minimum 2-year follow-up after primary ACL reconstruction. This study highlights that the all–soft tissue QT autograft may be a suitable graft choice for primary ACL reconstruction.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Meniscal injuries are among the most common orthopaedic injuries, with a significant volume of published literature. Purpose: To perform a comprehensive bibliometric analysis that appropriately evaluates the 50 most cited articles in meniscal research. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: We performed a keyword search of the ISI Web of Knowledge database and then pared the results down to the 50 most cited articles using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extracted included title, first author, citation count, year of publication, topic, journal, article type, country of origin, and level of evidence. Correlation coefficients were calculated between publication date and citation density and between publication date and raw citation count. Results: The 50 most cited articles were published from 1975 to 2013. The mean number of citations was 258.24 (range, 163-926; median, 225). The majority of articles were published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine (19%), the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (12%), and Arthritis & Rheumatology (14%). Most articles focused on either the anatomy and biomechanics of meniscal injury or on prevention and physical rehabilitation (12 papers each). Conclusion: The most popular fields of meniscal research involved anatomy/biomechanics and prevention/rehabilitation, and both are areas that will likely increase the probability of an article’s being highly cited in the future. This study provided a quality selection of the most cited articles on meniscal injury and may provide a foundation for both beginner and senior clinician readers for further discussion and research.