The study design includes a systematic literature review. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic surgery and to compare this with open microdiscectomy in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations. Transforaminal endoscopic techniques for patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations have become increasingly popular. The literature has not yet been systematically reviewed. A comprehensive systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed up to May 2008. Two reviewers independently checked all retrieved titles and abstracts and relevant full text articles for inclusion criteria. Included articles were assessed for quality and outcomes were extracted by the two reviewers independently. One randomized controlled trial, 7 non-randomized controlled trials and 31 observational studies were identified. Studies were heterogeneous regarding patient selection, indications, operation techniques, follow-up period and outcome measures and the methodological quality of these studies was poor. The eight trials did not find any statistically significant differences in leg pain reduction between the transforaminal endoscopic surgery group (89%) and the open microdiscectomy group (87%); overall improvement (84 vs. 78%), re-operation rate (6.8 vs. 4.7%) and complication rate (1.5 vs. 1%), respectively. In conclusion, current evidence on the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic surgery is poor and does not provide valid information to either support or refute using this type of surgery in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations. High-quality randomized controlled trials with sufficiently large sample sizes are direly needed to evaluate if transforaminal endoscopic surgery is more effective than open microdiscectomy.

There is moderate to low quality evidence of no differences in clinical outcomes between MI surgery and conventional microdiscectomy for patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation. Studies comparing transforaminal MI with conventional surgery with sufficient sample size and methodological robustness are lacking.

Transforaminal endoscopic techniques have become increasingly popular in surgery of patients with lumbar stenosis. The literature has not yet been systematically reviewed. A comprehensive systematic literature review up to November 2009 to assess the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic surgery in patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis was made. Two reviewers independently checked all retrieved titles and abstracts and relevant full text articles for inclusion criteria. Included articles were assessed for quality, and relevant data, including outcomes, were extracted by two reviewers independently. No randomized controlled trials were identified, but seven observational studies. The studies were of poor methodological quality and heterogeneous regarding patient selection, indications, operation techniques, follow-up period and outcome measures. Overall, 69–83% reported the outcome as satisfactory and a complication rate of 0–8.3%. The reported re-operation rate varied from 0 to 20%. At present, there is no valid evidence from randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic surgery for lumbar stenosis. Randomized controlled trials comparing transforaminal endoscopic surgery with other surgical techniques are direly needed.

Objective Knee joint distraction (KJD) is a joint-preserving osteoarthritis treatment that may postpone a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in younger patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates short- and long-term clinical benefit and tissue structure changes after KJD. Design MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched for eligible clinical studies evaluating at least one of the primary parameters: WOMAC, VAS-pain, KOOS, EQ5D, radiographic joint space width or MRI cartilage thickness after KJD. Random effects models were applied on all outcome parameters and outcomes were compared with control groups found in the included studies. Results Eleven articles reporting on 7 different KJD cohorts with in total 127 patients and 5 control groups with multiple follow-up moments were included, of which 2 were randomized controlled trials. Significant improvements in all primary parameters were found and benefit lasted up to at least 9 years. Overall, outcomes were comparable with control groups, including high tibial osteotomy, although TKA showed better clinical response. Conclusions Current, still limited, evidence shows KJD causes clear benefit in clinical and structural parameters, both short- and long-term. Longer follow-up with more patients is necessary, to validate outcome and to potentially improve patient selection for this intensive treatment. Thus far, for younger knee osteoarthritis patients, KJD may be an option to consider.

Background Dislocation or liner dissociation of a total hip prosthesis usually results in pain and discomfort. Although several reports describe chronic dislocation and its treatment, chronic liner dissociation is an unreported complication. Case Description We report an unrecognized dissociation and displacement of the liner of a total hip prosthesis after revision THA. The patient had virtually no pain or functional restrictions. The patient's only complaint was pain on the contralateral side, associated with a leg-length discrepancy. Since the patient had no complaints relative to the liner dissociation we elected not to pursue further treatment. The contralateral pain was treated successfully with a shoe lift. Literature Review Chronic dislocation of a THA is a rare complication and we found reports of only seven cases in the literature. We found no reports of chronic liner dissociation. Clinical Relevance Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the possibility of this rare complication. Our case and the literature suggest treatment can be nonsurgical or surgical.