BackgroundClinical outcomes between the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), autologous blood (AB) and corticosteroid (CS) injection in lateral epicondylitis are still controversial.Materials and methodsA systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted with the aim of comparing relevant clinical outcomes between the use of PRP, AB and CS injection. Medline and Scopus databases were searched from inception to January 2015. A network meta-analysis was performed by applying weight regression for continuous outcomes and a mixed-effect Poisson regression for dichotomous outcomes.ResultsTen of 374 identified studies were eligible. When compared to CS, AB injection showed significantly improved effects with unstandardized mean differences (UMD) in pain visual analog scale (VAS), Disabilities of Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Patient-Related Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) score and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of −2.5 (95 % confidence interval, −3.5, −1.5), −25.5 (−33.8, −17.2), −5.3 (−9.1, −1.6) and 9.9 (5.6, 14.2), respectively. PRP injections also showed significantly improved VAS and DASH scores when compared with CS. PRP showed significantly better VAS with UMD when compared to AB injection. AB injection has a higher risk of adverse effects, with a relative risk of 1.78 (1.00, 3.17), when compared to CS. The network meta-analysis suggested no statistically significant difference in multiple active treatment comparisons of VAS, DASH and PRTEE when comparing PRP and AB injections. However, AB injection had improved DASH score and PPT when compared with PRP injection. In terms of adverse effects, AB injection had a higher risk than PRP injection.ConclusionsThis network meta-analysis provided additional information that PRP injection can improve pain and lower the risk of complications, whereas AB injection can improve pain, disabilities scores and pressure pain threshold but has a higher risk of complications.Level of evidenceLevel I evidence

Background Treatment of acute (B3 weeks) acromioclavicular joint dislocation type III-VI is still controversial. Currently, the two modern techniques that are widely used are hook plate (HP) fixation and coracoclavicular ligament fixation using a suspensory loop device that consists of either a tightrope (single or double), endo-button (single or double), or synthetic ligament and absorbable polydioxansulfate sling. Materials and methods This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant studies that reported Constant-Murley score (CMS), Pain Visual Analog score (VAS) and postoperative complications of either technique were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to 5 October 2015. Results Sixteen studies were included for the analysis of HP fixation, and 25 studies were included for analysis of loop suspensory fixation (LSF). Pooling of mean CMS and VAS scores gave 90.35 (95% CI 87.16, 93.54), 1.51 (95% CI 0.73, 2) in the HP group, and 92.48 (95% CI 90.91, 94.05), 0.32 (95% CI 0, 0.64) in the suspensory loop devices group, respectively. The pooled unstandardized mean differences (UMD) scores of CMS and VAS in LSF were 2.13 (95% CI -1.43, 5.69) and -1.19 (95% CI -2.03, -0.35) when compared to hook plating. The pooled prevalence of LSF and hook plating were 0.08 (95% CI 0.06, 0.10) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.02, 0.08) scores. The chance of having complications in the LSF group was 1.69 (95% CI 1.07, 2.60), which was statistically significantly higher than in the HP group. Conclusion LSF have higher shoulder function scores (CMS) and lower postoperative pain when compared to HP fixation; however, there are higher complication rates with LSF when compared to hook plating. Level of evidence IV.

I.

In short-term outcomes (5 years or less, with follow-up of 0-5 years), TKA had higher postoperative complications than UKA, but had lower revision rates. There was only one study that reported long-term survivorship (more than 5 years, with follow-up of 5-15 years). Further research that assesses long-term survivorship is necessary to better evaluate UKA and TKA in the treatment of unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is generally considered to be one of the most successful orthopedic surgical procedures. THA patients continue to experience symptoms, most commonly pain, which prevent their return to full function and activity. Possible causes include failure of fixation, instability and damage to soft tissues, associated with the trauma of the surgical procedure. Choosing the optimal surgical approach can minimize these risks and therefore improve the outcome of THA. Surgical approaches in THA include anterior, lateral [anterolateral (Hardinge) and direct lateral (Watson-Jones)], posterior (posterolateral and posterior) and posterior-2 techniques. However, there is no current consensus regarding which approach is the most suitable. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the postoperative outcomes and complications among THA approach and identify which approach is the best for THA. We searched all RCT studies that compared intra-operative and postoperative outcomes of anterior, lateral [anterolateral (Hardinge) and direct lateral (Watson-Jones)], posterior (posterolateral and posterior) and posterior-2 approaches for THA from the PubMed and Scopus databases up to February 1, 2017. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. A network meta-analysis was applied to assess treatment outcomes. Probability of being the best treatment was estimated using surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). Fourteen RCTs (N = 1017 patients) met inclusion criteria. Interventions were anterior (N = 233 patients), lateral (N = 334 patients), posterior (N = 405 patients) and posterior-2 (N = 45 patients) approaches. A network meta-analysis showed that effects of anterior approach were higher to lateral, posterior and posterior-2 approaches with the pooled mean postoperative within 1 month and last follow-up of HHS of 2.56 (95% CI - 0.79, 5.91), 4.80 (95% CI 1.33, 8.26), 10.80 (95% CI 2.10, 19.49) and 6.40 (95% CI 0.72, 12.09), 2.22 (95% CI - 3.21, 7.66), 4.22 (95% CI - 6.81, 15.25), respectively. For VAS, lateral approach was lower to anterior, posterior and posterior-2 approaches. In terms of complication, posterior approach was the lowest risk with RR of 0.39 (95% CI 0.19, 0.81), 0.57 (95% CI 0.21, 1.57) and 1.74 (95% CI 0.36, 8.33) when compared to anterior, followed by lateral and posterior-2 approaches. Results of SUCRA indicated anterior and lateral approaches were the first and second ranks for postoperative HHS and VAS score, while posterior and lateral approaches were the first and second ranks for postoperative complications. We recommended using lateral approach that has an acceptable postoperative pain, function and complications (second rank for all outcomes) as a surgical technique for THA.