Purpose The aim of this review was to compare the clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with either meniscal repair or meniscectomy for concomitant meniscal injury. The primary hypothesis was that short-term clinical outcomes (≤ 2-year follow-up) for ACLR concomitant with either meniscal repair or resection would be similar. The secondary hypothesis was that ACLR with meniscal repair would result in better longer term outcomes compared with meniscal resection. Methods The authors searched two online databases (EMBASE and MEDLINE) from inception until March 2018 for the literature on ACLR and concurrent meniscal surgery. Two reviewers systematically screened studies in duplicate, independently, and based on a priori criteria. Quality assessment was also performed in duplicate. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) sub-scale scores at 2 years post-operatively were combined in a meta-analysis of proportions using a random-efects model. Results Of 2566 initial studies, 25 studies satisied full-text inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 2.09 years, with a total sample of 37,087 subjects including controls. The meta-analysis demonstrated equivocal results at 2 years, except for KOOS symptom scores which favoured meniscal resection over repair. Mean KT-1000 side-to-side diference (SSD) scores were 1.51 ± 0.60 mm for meniscal repair, 1.96 ± 0.36 mm for meniscal resection, and 1.58 ± 0.20 for control patients (isolated ACLR). Medial meniscal repair showed decreased anterior knee joint laxity compared to medial meniscal resection (P < 0.001). Patients with meniscal repair had higher rates of re-operation (13.3% vs 0.8% for meniscal resection, P < 0.001). Conclusion Patients with ACLR combined with meniscal resection demonstrate better symptoms at 2-year follow-up compared to patients with ACLR combined with meniscal repair. ACLR combined with meniscal repair results in decreased anterior knee joint laxity with evidence of improved patient-reported outcomes in the long term, but also higher re-operation rates. Level of evidence III.

Background: The direct anterior approach (DAA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) was originally performed with a supine patient on a specialised traction table, but the approach can also be performed on a standard operating table. Despite cost and safety implications, there are few studies directly comparing these techniques and table choice remains largely surgeon preference. The purpose of this review was to compare the clinical outcomes and complication profiles of traction and standard table DAA for primary THA. Methods: The authors searched databases for relevant studies, screening in duplicate. Study quality was assessed using MINORS criteria or Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Data pertaining to patient demographics, clinical outcomes, and complications were abstracted. Results: Of 3085 initial titles, 44 studies containing a total 26,353 patients were included and analysed. Mean operative time was 70.9 ± 21.2 minutes for standard table ( n = 4402) and 100.1 ± 32.6 minutes for traction table ( n = 3518). Mean estimated blood loss was 382.3 ± 246.4 mL for standard ( n = 2992) and 531.7 ± 364.3 mL for traction table ( n = 2675). Intra-operative fracture rate was 1.3% for standard table ( n = 3940) and 1.7% for traction table ( n = 8386). Complication rates including revisions, dislocations and peri-prosthetic fractures were qualitatively similar between traction and standard table studies. Conclusion: Standard table and traction table DAA have similar outcomes and complications. Both techniques offer the short-term advantages of DAA when compared to other THA approaches. However, the standard table technique may offer perioperative advantages including decreased blood loss, shorter operative time, and fewer intraoperative fractures. In the context of rising global healthcare costs and lack of access to specialised orthopaedic traction tables, this review at minimum confirms the short-term safety of standard table DAA THA and prompts the need for future studies to directly compare these techniques.

Purpose The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the surgical techniques, indications outcomes and complications for pediatric patients (≤ 19 years old) undergoing shoulder stabilization procedures for anterior shoulder instability. Methods The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from data inception to March 14, 2019 for articles addressing surgery for pediatric patients with anterior shoulder instability. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. Results Overall 24 studies, with a total of 688 patients (696 shoulders) and a mean age of 16.6 ± 2.5 years met inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 49 ± 26 months. The majority (59%) of studies only ofered shoulder stabilization procedures to patients with more than one shoulder dislocation, however, three studies reported operating on pediatric patients after irst time dislocations. Of the included patients 525 had arthroscopic Bankart repair (78%), 75 had open Bankart repair (11%), 34 had modiied Bristow (5%), and 26 had Latarjet (4%) procedures. The overall complication rate was 26%. Patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair experienced the highest recurrence rate of 24%. There were no signiicant diferences in recurrent instability (n.s.) or loss of external rotation (n.s.) in pediatric patients treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair compared to open Latarjet. Patients had a 95% rate of return to sport at any level (i.e. preinjury level or any level of play) postoperatively (95%). Conclusions Pediatric patients are at high risk of recurrent instability after surgical stabilization. The majority of pediatric patients with anterior shoulder instability were treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair. Most studies recommend surgical stabilization only after more than one dislocation. However, given the high rates of recurrence with non-operative management, it may be reasonable to perform surgery at a irst-time dislocation, particularly in those with other risk factors for recurrence. With the current evidence and limited sample sizes, it is diicult to directly compare the surgical interventions and their post-operative eicacy (i.e. re-dislocation rates or range of motion). There was an overall high rate of return to sport after surgical stabilization at inal follow-up. Level of evidence IV.

IV.

No abstract

Joint denervation has been proposed as a less invasive option for surgical management of hand arthritis that preserves joint anatomy while treating pain and decreasing postoperative recovery times. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the efficacy and safety of surgical joint denervation for osteoarthritis in the joints of the hand. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases were searched from January 2000 to March 2019. Studies of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis of the hand who underwent joint denervation surgery were included. Two reviewers performed the screening process, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment (Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies). This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (#125811). Ten studies were included, 9 case series and 1 cohort study, with a total of 192 patients. In all studies, joint denervation improved pain and hand function at follow-up (M = 36.8 months, range = 3-90 months). Pooled analysis of 3 studies on the first carpometacarpal joint showed a statistically significant ( P < .001) reduction in pain scores from baseline (M = 6.61 ± 2.03) to postoperatively (M = 1.69 ± 1.27). The combined complication rate was 18.8% (n = 36 of 192), with neuropathic pain or unintended sensory loss (8.8%, n = 17 of 192) being the most common. This review suggests that denervation may be an effective and low-morbidity procedure for treating arthritis of the hand. Prospective, comparative studies are required to further understand the outcomes of denervation compared with traditional surgical interventions.

Background Deep surgical site infections after spinal instrumentation represent a significant source of patient morbidity and poorer outcomes. Given lack of evidence or guidelines on the variety of procedural options in the management of deep spine surgical site infections, the purpose of this survey was to document and investigate the use of these techniques across Canada. Methods A 34-question survey evaluating surgical techniques for irrigation and debridement in postoperative thoracolumbar infection was distributed to Canadian adult spine surgeons. Results were analyzed qualitatively, and comparisons by specialty, years of training, and number of cases were completed using Fischer’s exact tests. We defined consensus as >70% agreement. Results We received 53 responses (62% response rate) from a comprehensive sample of Canadian adult spine surgeons. There was a consensus to retain hardware (80%) and interbody implants (93%) in acute infection, to retain interbody implants in chronic/recurrent infection (71%), and application of topical antibiotics in recurrent infection (85%). There was consensus on the use of absorbable suture to close fascia in acute (83%) and chronic (87%) infection. Eighty-five percent of surgeons used nonabsorbable materials such as Nylon or staples for skin closure in chronic infection, however, there was no consensus in acute infection. Surgeons varied significantly in type, volume and pressure of fluids, adjuvant solvents, graft management, use of topical antibiotics acutely, and the use of negative pressure wound therapy. Partial hardware exchange was controversial. Additionally, specialty or surgeon experience had no impact on management strategy. Conclusions This survey demonstrates significant heterogeneity amongst Canadian adult spine surgeons regarding key steps in the surgical management of deep instrumented spine infection, concordant with scarce literature addressing these steps.

Femoral shaft fractures are devastating injuries that usually result from high-energy mechanisms in victims of poly-trauma. Reamed and statically locked intramedullary nailing (IMN) is the definitive treatment modality for femoral shaft fractures. Patients are most commonly positioned either supine or lateral decubitus. There remains considerable concern regarding the safety of lateral positioning in the traumatized patient, particularly in the management of a potentially difficult airway or concomitant C-spine injuries. We therefore undertook a systematic review of intraoperative positioning among patients with femoral shaft fractures following PRISMA guidelines. Title and abstract screening, full text screening, and data abstraction were all completed in duplicate. Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) scores were used to evaluate methodological quality. Results: 3018 studies were included in initial screening, with three studies ultimately meeting all inclusion criteria. A total of 1,949 patients were analyzed, with 684 patients treated in lateral positioning and 1,215 patients in supine positioning. Level of agreement was strong across title (κ = 0.872; 95% CI 0.794 to 0.951), abstract (κ = 0.801; 95% CI 0.585 to 1.000), and full-text screening (κ = 1.000). The consensus mean MINORS score of included studies was 17.67 ± 0.58, indicating good to high quality of evidence. Neither patient positioning offered obvious benefits such as fewer complications or shorter operative time.  Furthermore, length of admission, days in ICU or on ventilator, and overall morbidity were not found to be significantly different between positions. Lateral positioning for intramedullary nailing of mid-shaft femur fractures appears to be a safe alternative to the standard supine positioning. There is a lack of both prospective and retrospective comparative studies investigating functional clinical outcomes in the literature.