Advancements in de Quervain Tenosynovitis Management: A Comprehensive Network Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: This study presents a network meta-analysis aimed at evaluating nonsurgical treatment modalities for de Quervain tenosynovitis. The primary objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical treatment options. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches were performed in multiple databases, and studies meeting predefined criteria were included. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and statistical analysis were carried out to compare treatment modalities. The analysis was categorized into short-term (within six weeks), medium-term (six weeks up to six months), and long-term (one year) follow-up. RESULTS: The analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials encompassing various treatment modalities for de Quervain tenosynovitis. In the short-term, extracorporeal shockwave therapy demonstrated statistically significant improvement in visual analog scale pain scores compared with placebo. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy also ranked highest in the treatment options based on its treatment effects. Corticosteroid injections (CSIs) combined with casting and laser therapy with orthosis showed favorable outcomes. Corticosteroid injection alone, platelet-rich plasma injections alone, acupuncture, and orthosis alone did not significantly differ from placebo in visual analog scale pain score. In the medium-term, extracorporeal shockwave therapy remained the top-ranking option for visual analog scale pain score, followed by CSI with casting. In the long-term (one year), CSI alone and platelet-rich plasma injections demonstrated sustained pain relief. Combining CSI with orthosis also appeared promising when compared with CSI alone. CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroid injection with a short duration of immobilization remains the primary and effective treatment for de Quervain tenosynovitis. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy can be considered a secondary option. Alternative treatment modalities, such as isolated therapeutic injection, should be approached with caution because they did not show substantial benefits over placebo. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic I.

Research priorities in foot and ankle conditions: results of a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the priorities of research in surgical interventions and aftercare in foot and ankle conditions in adults, from inclusive viewpoints of patients, carers, allied professionals and clinicians, as a collaboration with James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership. Setting A UK-based national study organised through British Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (BOFAS). DESIGN: A cross-section of both medical and allied professionals, with patient involvement, submitted their 'top priorities' pertaining to foot and ankle pathology, using both paper and web-based formats, which were synthesised into the primary priorities. Following this, workshop-based reviews were used to determine the top 10 priorities. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients, carers, allied professionals and clinicians who have experienced or managed foot and ankle conditions in the UK. METHODS: A transparent and well-established process developed by JLA was carried out by a steering group of 16 members. A broad survey was designed and disseminated to the public via clinics, BOFAS meetings and website, JLA platforms and electronic media to establish potential research priority questions. Surveys were analysed and initial questions were categorised and cross-referenced with the literature. Those questions that were out of scope and sufficiently answered by research were excluded. The unanswered questions were ranked by the public via a second survey. The top 10 questions were finalised via an extensive workshop. RESULTS: 472 questions from 198 responders were received from the primary survey. 71% (140) from healthcare professionals, 24% (48) from patients and carers and 5% (10) from other responders. 142 questions were out of scope, leaving 330 questions. These were summarised into 60 indicative questions. Reviewing against current literature, 56 questions were left. From the secondary survey, there were 291 respondents: 79% (230) healthcare professionals and 12% (61) patients and carers. After the secondary survey, the top 16 questions were brought to the final workshop to finalise the top 10 research questions. The top 10 questions were: What are the best outcome measures (ways of assessing the effect of the treatment) after foot and ankle surgery? What treatment is the best for Achilles tendon pain? What is the best treatment (including surgery) for tibialis posterior dysfunction (tendon on the inner side of the ankle), leading to a successful long-term outcome? Should physiotherapy be provided following foot and ankle surgery and is there an optimal amount needed to restore function after foot and ankle surgery? At what stage should a patient with ankle instability (ie, an ankle that keeps giving way) be considered for surgical treatment? How effective are steroid injections in improving pain from arthritis in the foot and ankle? What is the best surgery for bone and cartilage defects in the talus? What is better, ankle fusion or ankle replacements? What is the success of surgical lengthening of the calf muscle in improving forefoot pain? What is the best time to start weight bearing after ankle fusion/replacement surgery? CONCLUSION: Top 10 themes included outcomes following interventions, for example, range of movement, reduction in pain, rehabilitation, which included physiotherapy to optimise post intervention outcomes, rehabilitation and condition-specific treatments. These questions will aid to guide national research into foot and ankle surgery. It will also help national funding bodies to prioritise areas of research interest to improve patient care.

A meta-analysis of union rate after proximal scaphoid fractures: terminology matters.

Heterogeneity in the anatomical definition of 'proximal' affects the comparison of outcomes of these scaphoid fractures. This study aims to review published outcomes of all variants to determine both, differences in terminology, and union rate based upon definition. A literature search was conducted to identify articles that reported descriptions and union rate of all acute (<8 weeks of injury) proximal scaphoid fractures in adult patients (>16 years old). Proximal fractures were grouped as reported ('third', 'pole', 'fifth' or 'undefined'). The data were pooled using a fixed-effects method, and a meta-analysis was conducted to compare relative risk (RR) of non-union against non-proximal fractures. Qualitative analysis of 12 articles included three main definitions: 'proximal' (1 article), 'proximal third' (3 articles), and 'proximal pole' (8 articles). Only 6 articles adopted a specific anatomical or ratio description. In a pooled meta-analysis of union rates (15 articles), 'proximal third' and 'proximal pole' fractures demonstrated a relative risk (RR) of non-union of 2.3 and 3.4 in comparison to non-proximal fractures, respectively. Operative management yielded lower non-union rates than non-operative for all fracture types (6% vs. 18%). In conclusion, non-union risk varies depending on definition, with non-standardised classifications adding heterogeneity to reported outcomes. We recommend an approach utilizing fixed anatomical landmarks on plain radiographs (referencing scaphoid length and scapho-capitate joint) to standardise reporting of proximal fracture union in future studies. Abbreviations: CI: confidence intervals; CT: computer tomography; Df: degrees of freedom; DL: dersimonian and laird estimator; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; NICE: national institute for health and care excellence; OTA: orthopaedic trauma association; PA: posterior-anterior; PRISMA: preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta analyses; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: relative risk; SNAC: scaphoid non-union advanced collapse; UK: United Kingdom.

Patient Outcomes Following Ankle Fracture Fixation.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported on potential negative predictive factors of functional outcomes after ankle fracture fixation. However, there is minimal patient-reported data on long-term outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate potential risk factors leading to a poor patient-reported functional outcome at 2 and 5 years following ankle fracture fixation. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study over a 5-year period on patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation for unstable ankle fractures. Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, fracture pattern, and fixation quality were recorded and analyzed. Patients were followed up at 2 and 5 years. Data collected include the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), ongoing issues, and the need for further intervention. A P value <.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Out of 180 patients, follow-up data were available for 82 (46%) patients at 2 years and 94 (52%) patients at 5 years. At 2 years, age ≥60 years was a predictor of worse LEFS, while a body mass index ≥30 was a predictor of worse OMAS. Severely deformed ankle at presentation showed worse OMAS and LEFS score. However, these predictive factors were not significant at 5 years. An anatomically reduced ankle fracture fixation was more likely to have a better functional outcome at the 2- and 5-year follow-ups. A reduction in OMAS at 2 years was predictive of possible ongoing issues following surgery, which in turn increased the odds of worsening OMAS at 5 years. CONCLUSION: Achieving adequate fracture reduction during fixation is crucial for better ankle functional recovery postinjury. In this cohort, we found that patients who undergo ankle fracture fixation will have an ongoing negative impact on their functional and physical capacity at both 2 and 5 years postoperatively. Appropriate patient counseling is necessary to prepare them for the expected functional outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic.

Medium-Term Results of Corticosteroid Injections for Morton's Neuroma.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the medium-term results of corticosteroid injections for Morton's neuroma. METHODS: This was a prospective follow-up study of a previous randomized controlled trial (RCT). Forty-five neuromas in 36 patients were injected with a single corticosteroid injection either with or without ultrasound guidance. As the results of the RCT showed no difference in outcomes between techniques, the data were pooled for the purpose of this study. Questionnaires were sent out and responses were collected via mail or telephone interview. Results were available in 42 out of 45 neuromas. There was a sex split of 68% female/32% male with a mean age of 62.6 years (SD, 12 years). RESULTS: At mean follow-up of 4.8 years (SD, 0.91 years), the original corticosteroid injection remained effective in 36% (n = 16) of the patients. In these cases, the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score (P < .001) and Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire Index (MOxFQ Index) (P = .001) remained significantly better than preintervention scores. The remaining cases underwent either a further injection or surgery. Fifty-five percent of the 11 neuromas that received a second injection continued to be asymptomatic in the medium term. Overall, 44% (n = 20) of the initial cohort underwent surgical excision by the medium-term follow-up. The VAS score, MOxFQ Index, and satisfaction scale score across all groups were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroid injections for Morton's neuroma remained effective in over a third of cases for up to almost 5 years. A positive outcome at 1 year following a corticosteroid injection was reasonably predictive of a prolonged effect from the injection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.

Management of Little Finger Metacarpal Fractures: A Meta-Analysis of the Current Evidence.

Background: The little finger metacarpal neck fracture, also known as boxer's fracture, is a commonly encountered upper limb fracture in orthopaedics. There are multiple ways of managing this fracture, ranging from immediate mobilization to rigid internal fixation. However, there is still a lack of consensus on the best management option. The aim of this study is to review all comparative studies, either randomized trial or cohort studies, on little finger metacarpal neck fracture management, meta-analyze the radiological and functional outcome between conservative and operative management. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted between year 1987 to 2018 on MEDLINE and EMBASE. To be included, studies needed to have shown comparison between conservative against operative management, assessing the radiological (palmar angulation) and the patient reported functional outcomes. The data were pooled using fixed-effect method. The methodology was adapted from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions and compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PROSPERO CRD42018099168). Results: 5 full papers were included in our study. Our meta-analysis showed that compared to operative management, conservative management report worse radiological palmar angulation at follow-up; but equivalent functional outcome in terms of Quick-DASH and grip strength. Conservative studies also showed fewer mean days off in comparison to operative management. Conservative management also showed equivalent Total Active Motion (TAM) and Visual Analogue Score for Pain (VAS), but some studies had insufficient data to be pooled. Conclusions: Regardless of palmar angulation, conservative treatment of little finger metacarpal neck fracture provides an equivalent functional outcome to surgical intervention with an earlier return to work and no risk of surgical complications. Larger, randomised controlled trials are required.

Two-dimensional/three-dimensional EOS™ imaging is reliable and comparable to traditional X-ray imaging assessment of knee osteoarthritis aiding surgical management.

BACKGROUND: X-ray imaging is the gold standard for assessing lower limb conditions and preoperative planning. A novel low-radiation-dose EOS™ imaging system enables full-length weight-bearing imaging in one session and three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction. Thus, it can improve assessment of limb deformities, preoperative planning and follow-up with lower radiation exposure. The objective of this study was to measure lower limbs from EOS™ images to determine its accuracy and reproducibility in comparison with long-leg X-ray images. METHODS: Over a one-year period, twenty patients (forty lower limbs) with knee osteoarthritis were recruited from clinic. Thirty-five (five excluded due to knee prosthesis) two-dimensional- (2D) EOS™, 3D EOS™ and X-ray images were measured independently by four observers, measuring lower limb angles and lengths. On average, twelve weeks later, observers repeated measurements on 2D EOS™ and X-ray images. RESULTS: A t-test comparing 2D EOS™ with X-ray images showed no significant difference in all angle and length measurements (P > 0.05). When analysing observers separately, all measurements showed no significant difference, apart from the femoral anatomic-mechanical angle (fAMA) from observer 2 (2D EOS™ fAMA 6.21° vs. X-ray fAMA 7.10°, P = 0.02). Intra-observer intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for 2D EOS™ and X-ray was 1.00 and 1.00, respectively, and inter-observer ICC was 1.00 and 0.99, respectively. A t-test comparing 2D- with 3D EOS™ images showed no significant difference in all measurements. A t-test comparing 3D EOS™ with X-ray images showed no significant difference in all measurements. CONCLUSION: This study showed the EOS™ imaging system to be a valid alternative method of imaging lower limbs for alignment, measurements and preoperative arthroplasty planning.

Gluteal Compartment Syndrome after Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

We describe a case of gluteal compartment syndrome (GCS) after a 4-vessel fenestrated endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. The case highlights the need for a high index of suspicion for GCS as a differential diagnosis for spinal cord ischemia in patients developing perioperative lower limb neurologic deficit after extensive abdominal aortic stent-graft coverage.