No abstract

Objectives:Recently, several studies have suggested that bladetype cephalomedullary nails (CMNs) have a higher risk of fixation failure than that of lag screws, but no clinical consensus exists. This study compared fixation failure between helical blade-type and lag screw-type CMNs with cut-out and cut-through rates as primary outcomes and degree of sliding length, time to union, and nonunion rate as secondary outcomes.Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies published before March 4, 2020, using the PRISMA guidelines.Study Selection: Studies were included if they directly compared helical blade and lag screw for treating hip fractures. Data could be extracted for CMN alone to avoid mixing CMN and extramedullary plate devices, such as the dynamic hip screw.Data Extraction: Two board-certified orthopaedic surgeons specializing in hip surgery independently extracted data from the selected studies, and the data collected were compared to verify agreement.Data Synthesis: All data were pooled using a random-effects model. For all comparisons, odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated as dichotomous data, whereas continuous data were analyzed using mean differences with 95% CIs.Conclusions: Fixation failure (OR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.09-3.23, P = 0.02), especially cut-through (OR = 5.33; 95% CI, 2.09-13.56; P , 0.01), was more common with helical blades than with lag screws, although the cut-out rate was not significantly different between both the 2 groups (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.38-1.96, P = 0.73). Surgeons should carefully select a blade-type CMN when treating hip fractures.

No abstract

Background: Presently, hip arthroscopy is a widely adopted surgical intervention for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). However, there is insufficient evidence regarding which between arthroscopy and nonoperative treatment is more optimal for symptomatic FAI. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies that compared arthroscopy and nonoperative interventions for FAI treatment from inception to August 4, 2020. We included studies that directly compared surgical and nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic FAI and excluded those that did not use arthroscopic treatment as a surgical technique and studies performed on patients with concomitant diagnoses instead of pure FAI. We compared the following clinical outcome scores at 6 and 12 months of follow-up: International Hip Outcome Tool 33 (iHOT-33), hip outcome score (HOS), EuroQol-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS), modified Harris hip score (mHHS), and nonarthritic hip score (NAHS). Results: Five studies totaling 838 patients were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis; 382 patients underwent hip arthroscopy, and 456 patients were treated by nonoperative interventions. At 6 months of follow-up, there were no statistically significant differences in iHOT-33 ratings (mean difference [MD] = 7.92, P = .15), HOS (MD of HOS-ADL = 5.15, P = .26 and MD of HOS-Sports = 2.65, P = .79, respectively), and EQ-VAS (MD = 1.22, P = .76) between the 2 treatment strategies. At 12 months of follow-up, the arthroscopy group had a greater mean improvement in iHOT-33 score than the conservative treatment group (MD = 8.42, P = .002), but there was no difference between the groups in terms of mHHS rating (MD = −0.24, P = .83) and NAHS (MD = −2.08, P = .09). Conclusion: Despite arthroscopy being associated with significantly superior iHOT-33 scores after 12 months of follow-up, we were unable to discern the difference between the treatment strategies using other scoring methods, such as HOS, EQ-VAS, mHHS, and NAHS. Further studies will be needed to conclusively determine if 1 strategy is superior to the other for treating FAI.