Interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the patella (kneecap) account for around 1% of all human fractures. The treatment of these fractures can be surgical or conservative (such as immobilisation with a cast or brace). There are many different surgical and conservative interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions (surgical and conservative) for treating fractures of the patella in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2020, Issue 1), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, trial registers and references lists of articles to January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that evaluated any surgical or conservative intervention for treating adults with fractures of the patella. The primary outcomes were patient-rated knee function, knee pain and major adverse outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected eligible trials, assessed risk of bias and cross-checked data extraction. Where appropriate, we pooled results of comparable trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 small trials involving 564 adults (aged 16 to 76 years) with patella fractures. There were 340 men and 212 women; the gender of 12 participants was not reported. Seven trials were conducted in China and one each in Finland, Mexico, Pakistan and Turkey. All 11 trials compared different surgical interventions for patella fractures. All trials had design flaws, such as lack of assessor blinding, which put them at high risk of bias, potentially limiting the reliability of their findings. No trial reported on health-related quality of life, return to previous activity or cosmetic appearance. The trials tested one of seven comparisons. In the following, we report those of the main outcomes for which evidence was available for the three most important comparisons. Four trials (174 participants) compared percutaneous osteosynthesis versus open surgery. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the findings of no clinically important difference between the two interventions in patient-rated knee function at 12 months (1 study, 50 participants) or in knee pain at intermediate-term follow-up at eight weeks to three months. Furthermore, very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain whether, compared with open surgery, percutaneous fixation surgery reduces the incidence of major adverse outcomes, such as loss of reduction and hardware complications, or results in better observer-rated knee function scores. Two trials (112 participants) compared cable pin system (open or percutaneous surgery) versus tension band technique. The very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the findings at one year in favour of the cable pin system of slightly better patient-rated knee function, fewer adverse events and slightly better observer-rated measures of knee function. There was very low-quality evidence of little clinically important between-group difference in knee pain at three months. Very low-quality evidence from two small trials (47 participants) means that we are uncertain of the findings of little difference between biodegradable versus metallic implants at two-year follow-up in the numbers of participants with occasional knee pain, incurring adverse events or with reduced knee motion. There was very low-quality and incomplete evidence from single trials for four other comparisons. This means we are uncertain of the results of one trial (28 participants) that compared patellectomy with advancement of vastus medialis obliquus surgery with simple patellectomy; of one quasi-RCT (56 participants) that compared a new intraoperative reduction technique compared with a standard technique; of one quasi-RCT (65 participants) that compared a modified tension band technique versus the conventional AO tension band wiring (TBW) technique; and of one trial (57 participants) that compared adjustable patella claws and absorbable suture versus Kirschner wire tension band. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence from nine RCTs and two quasi-RCTs on the relative effects of different surgical interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults. There is no evidence from trials evaluating the relative effects of surgical versus conservative treatment or different types of conservative interventions. Given the very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether methods of percutaneous osteosynthesis give better results than conventional open surgery; whether cable pin system (open or percutaneous surgery) gives better results than the tension band technique; and whether biodegradable implants are better than metallic implants for displaced patellar fractures. Further randomised trials are needed, but, to optimise research effort, these should be preceded by research that aims to identify priority questions.

Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating acromioclavicular dislocation of the shoulder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint is one of the most common shoulder injuries in a sport-active population. The question of whether surgery should be used remains controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of surgical versus conservative (non-surgical) interventions for treating acromioclavicular dislocations in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (to June 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to June 2019), Embase (1980 to June 2019), and LILACS (1982 to June 2019), trial registries, and reference lists of articles. There were no restrictions based on language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared surgical with conservative treatment of acromioclavicular dislocation in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently performed study screening and selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five randomised trials and one quasi-randomised trial. The included trials involved 357 mainly young adults, the majority of whom were male, with acute acromioclavicular dislocation. The strength of the findings in all studies was limited due to design features, invariably lack of blinding, that carry a high risk of bias. Fixation of the acromioclavicular joint using hook plates, tunnelled suspension devices, coracoclavicular screws, acromioclavicular pins, or (usually threaded) wires was compared with supporting the arm in a sling or similar device. After surgery, the arm was also supported in a sling or similar device in all trials. Where described in the trials, both groups had exercise-based rehabilitation. We downgraded the evidence for all outcomes at least two levels, invariably for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision.Low-quality evidence from two studies showed no evidence of a difference between groups in shoulder function at one year, assessed using the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH) (0 (best function) to 100 (worst function)): mean difference (MD) 0.73 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.70 to 4.16; 112 participants. These results were consistent with other measures of function at one-year or longer follow-up, including non-validated outcome scores reported by three studies. There is low-quality evidence that function at six weeks may be better after conservative treatment, indicating an earlier recovery. Very low-quality evidence from one trial found no difference between groups in participants reporting pain at one year: risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.19; 79 participants. There is very low-quality evidence that surgery may not reduce the risk of treatment failure, usually resulting in non-routine secondary surgery: 14/168 versus 15/174; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.94; 342 participants, 6 studies. The main source of treatment failure was complications related to surgical implants in the surgery group and persistent symptoms, mainly discomfort, due to the acromioclavicular dislocation in the conservatively treated group.There is low-quality evidence from two studies that there may be little or no difference between groups in the return to former activities (sports or work) at one year: 57/67 versus 62/70; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10; 137 participants, 2 studies. Low-quality but consistent evidence from four studies indicated an earlier recovery in conservatively treated participants compared with those treated with surgery. There is low-quality evidence of no clinically important difference between groups at one year in quality of life scores, measured using the 36-item or 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36 or SF-12) (0-to-100 scale, where 100 is best score), in either the physical component (MD -0.63, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.37; 122 participants, 2 studies) or mental component (MD 0.47 points, 95% CI -1.51 to 2.44; 122 participants). There is very low-quality and clinically heterogenous evidence of a greater risk of an adverse event after surgery: 45/168 versus 16/174; RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.82; 342 participants, 6 studies; I2 = 48%. Common adverse outcomes were hardware complications or discomfort (18.5%) and infection (8.7%) in the surgery group and persistent symptoms (7.1%), mainly discomfort, in the conservatively treated group. The majority of surgical complications occurred in older studies testing now-outdated devices known for their high risk of complications. The very low-quality evidence from one study (70 participants) means that we are uncertain whether there is a between-group difference in patient dissatisfaction with cosmetic results.It is notable that the evidence for function, return to former activities, and quality of life came from the two most recently conducted studies, which tested currently used devices and interventions in clearly defined participant populations that represented the commonly perceived population for which there is uncertainty over the use of surgery. There were insufficient data to conduct subgroup analysis relating to type of injury and whether surgery involved ligament reconstruction or not. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence that surgical treatment has no additional benefits in terms of function, return to former activities, and quality of life at one year compared with conservative treatment. There is, however, low-quality evidence that people treated conservatively had improved function at six weeks compared with surgical management. There is very low-quality evidence of little difference between the two treatments in pain at one year, treatment failure usually resulting in secondary surgery, or patient satisfaction with cosmetic result. Although surgery may result in more people sustaining adverse events, this varied between the trials, being more common in techniques such as K-wire fixation that are rarely used today. There remains a need to consider the balance of risks between the individual outcomes: for example, surgical adverse events, including wound infection or dehiscence and hardware complication, against risk of adverse events that may be more commonly associated with conservative treatment such as persistent symptoms or discomfort, or both.There is a need for sufficiently powered, good-quality, well-reported randomised trials of currently used surgical interventions versus conservative treatment for well-defined injuries.

Treatment of the humeral shaft fractures--minimally invasive osteosynthesis with bridge plate versus conservative treatment with functional brace: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Humeral shaft fractures account for 1 to 3% of all fractures in adults and for 20% of all humeral fractures. Non-operative treatment is still the standard treatment of isolated humeral shaft fractures, although this method can present unsatisfactory results. Surgical treatment is reserved for specific conditions. Modern concepts of internal fixation of long bone shaft fractures advocate relative stabilisation techniques with no harm to fracture zone. Recently described, minimally invasive bridge plate osteosynthesis has been shown to be a secure technique with good results for treating humeral shaft fractures. There is no good quality evidence advocating which method is more effective. This randomised controlled trial will be performed to investigate the effectiveness of surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures with bridge plating in comparison with conservative treatment with functional brace. METHODS/DESIGN: This randomised clinical trial aims to include 110 patients with humeral shaft fractures who will be allocated after randomisation to one of the two groups: bridge plate or functional brace. Surgical treatment will be performed according to technique described by Livani and Belangero using a narrow DCP plate. Non-operative management will consist of a functional brace for 6 weeks or until fracture consolidation. All patients will be included in the same rehabilitation program and will be followed up for 1 year after intervention. The primary outcome will be the DASH score after 6 months of intervention. As secondary outcomes, we will assess SF-36 questionnaire, treatment complications, Constant score, pain (Visual Analogue Scale) and radiographs. DISCUSSION: According to current evidence shown in a recent systematic review, this study is one of the first randomised controlled trials designed to compare two methods to treat humeral shaft fractures (functional brace and bridge plate surgery).

Are classifications of proximal radius fractures reproducible?

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the proximal radius need to be classified in an appropriate and reproducible manner. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of the three most widely used classification systems. METHODS: Elbow radiographs images of patients with proximal radius fractures were classified according to Mason, Morrey, and Arbeitsgemeinschaft für osteosynthesefragen/Association for the Study of Internal Fixation (AO/ASIF) classifications by four observers with different experience with this subject to assess their intra- and inter-observer agreement. Each observer analyzed the images on three different occasions on a computer with numerical sequence randomly altered. RESULTS: We found that intra-observer agreement of Mason and Morrey classifications were satisfactory (kappa = 0.582 and 0.554, respectively), while the AO/ASIF classification had poor intra-observer agreement (kappa = 0.483). Inter-observer agreement was higher in the Mason (kappa = 0.429-0.560) and Morrey (kappa = 0.319-0.487) classifications than in the AO/ASIF classification (kappa = 0.250-0.478), which showed poor reliability. CONCLUSION: Inter- and intra-observer agreement of the Mason and Morey classifications showed overall satisfactory reliability when compared to the AO/ASIF system. The Mason classification is the most reliable system.