Background As obesity becomes more prevalent, it becomes more common among patients considering orthopaedic surgery, including spinal surgery. However, there is some controversy regarding whether obesity is associated with complications, failed reconstructions, or reoperations after spinal surgery. Questions/purposes We wished to determine, in patients undergoing spine surgery, whether obesity is associated with (1) surgical site infection, (2) mortality and the need for revision surgery after spinal surgery, and (3) increased surgical time and blood loss. Methods A systematic literature search was performed to collect comparative or controlled studies that evaluated the influence of obesity on the surgical and postoperative outcomes of spinal surgery. Two reviewers independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed the methodologic quality and quality of evidence. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs were calculated using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.1. MOOSE criteria were used to ensure this project's validity. Thirtytwo studies involving 97,326 patients eventually were included. Results Surgical site infection (OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.94-2.79), venous thromboembolism (OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.92-5.17), mortality (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.50-4.49), revision rate (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.05-1.93) operating time (OR, 14.55; 95% CI,, and blood loss (MD, 28.89; 95% CI,, were all significantly increased in the obese group. Conclusion Obesity seemed to be associated with higher risk of surgical site infection and venous thromboembolism, more blood loss, and longer surgical time. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm the relationship between obesity and the outcome of spinal surgery.

MPFL reconstruction with the double-transverse tunnels technique is safe and effective in patients of all ages, without marked predisposing anatomic abnormalities and moderate/severe osteochondral lesions, who suffered recurrent dislocation of the patella.

Background Arthroplasty has been shown to be superior regarding low risk of reoperation and better function score to internal fixation for treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures at short-term followup. However, there are unanswered questions regarding the efficacy of arthroplasty in the longer term compared with internal fixation. Questions/purposes We performed a meta-analysis comparing arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty or THA) with internal fixation in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures with respect to (1) mortality, (2) reoperation, (3) functional recovery, and (4) complications, including only randomized trials with a minimum of 4 years followup.Methods Computerized databases, including PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases, and Web of Science TM were searched for studies published from the inception date for each database to March 2014. Eleven randomized controlled trials that compared arthroplasty (either hemiarthroplasty or THA) with internal fixation for treatment of patients with a femoral neck fracture were included in our analysis. The quality of the trials was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook and meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.2 software from the Cochrane Collaboration. The heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by the I-squared index (I 2 ) and publication bias was assessed using forest plots. Results There were no differences between the internal fixation and arthroplasty groups for patient mortality at midterm (48.4% vs 46.8%) or long-term followup (83.2% vs 81.5%). Arthroplasty was associated with a lower risk of reoperation at mid-term (7.2% vs 39.8%; relative risk [RR] = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06-0.07) and at long-term followup (14.3% vs 43.8%; RR = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06-0.07). Arthroplasty was associated with better functional recovery at mid-term followup (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.02-1.09), whereas function at long-term followup (SMD = 0.14; 95% CI, À0.35 to 0.62) was not different between the arthroplasty and internal fixation groups. There were no significant differences in subsequent ipsilateral fractures (1.5% vs 1.2%; RR = 2.18; 95% CI, 0.32-14.67; p = 0.42) and deep infections (2.7% vs 2.9%; RR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.40-2.01; p = 0.78) between patients treated with arthroplasty and internal fixation. Conclusions Based on our results, we found that compared with internal fixation, arthroplasty may result in a lower rate of subsequent reoperation at mid-and long-term followup, and better mid-term functional recovery. Future

Background: Medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction, MPFL repair, and nonoperative treatment are important treatments for patients with patellar dislocation. However, it is unclear which treatment leads to better outcomes. Purpose: To determine the efficacy and safety of the 3 treatments in the treatment of patellar dislocation and compare the effect of MPFL reconstruction with MPFL repair, MPFL reconstruction with nonoperative treatment, and MPFL repair with nonoperative treatment. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), and Wanfang databases were searched from inception to December 2020. Included were clinical studies that described the efficacy and safety of 2 of the 3 treatments, studies directly comparing the clinical effects of the 2 operative techniques, or studies comparing the effects of reconstruction or repair with nonoperative treatment. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools. The outcomes evaluated were postoperative redislocation rate, revision rate, complications, and Kujala score. We used traditional direct pairwise meta-analysis as well as network meta-analysis for comprehensive efficacy of all 3 treatment measures. Results: Twelve studies were included: 5 compared MPFL reconstruction with MPFL repair, 2 compared MPFL reconstruction with nonoperative treatment, and 5 compared MPFL repair with nonoperative treatment. The risk of bias was serious in 4, moderate in 4 and low in 4 articles. MPFL reconstruction led to significantly reduced redislocation and improved Kujala scores compared with MPFL repair and nonoperative treatment. MPFL repair led to reduced redislocation rates compared with nonoperative treatment but did not show an obvious benefit in primary dislocations. There was no significant difference among the 3 treatments in terms of revision rate and incidence of complications, although we found that treatment-related complications were least likely to occur in nonoperative treatment. Conclusion: The results of this review indicate that MPFL reconstruction decreases recurrent dislocation compared with MPFL repair or nonoperative treatment, but it has a higher possibility of complications. MPFL repair resulted in less postoperative redislocation than nonoperative treatment but did not show an obvious benefit in primary dislocation.

No abstract