Efficacy and safety of monopolar versus bipolar radial head arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Radial head replacement is the main line of treating complex unstable elbow injuries. Radial head prostheses are either monopolar or bipolar. The difference between both designs in patients' clinical outcomes and postoperative complications is not yet clear. So, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of monopolar vs. bipolar implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched to identify studies comparing monopolar and bipolar implants. Data on clinical outcomes, postoperative complications, revision, and removal rates were extracted. RESULTS: Nine studies met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 591 patients (365 monopolar and 226 bipolar). Both prostheses achieved similar ranges of motion; Mayo Elbow Performance Score; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; and visual analog scale for pain. Incidence of postoperative complications was also similar between both designs. Revision and removal rates were 24%, 8% and 29%, 14% for monopolar and bipolar implants, respectively, but no statistically significant difference could be detected. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was found between monopolar and bipolar radial head prostheses in terms of efficacy and safety. Therefore, high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine the superiority of one design over the other.

Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: Arthrodesis has been a valid treatment option for spinal diseases, including spondylolisthesis and lumbar spinal stenosis. Posterolateral and posterior lumbar interbody fusion are amongst the most used fusion techniques. Previous reports comparing both methods have been contradictory. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish substantial evidence on which fusion method would achieve better outcomes. METHODS: Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes of interest between posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). We extracted data on clinical outcome, complication rate, revision rate, fusion rate, operation time, and blood loss. We calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome and the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: We retrieved 8 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, with a total of 616 patients (308 PLF, 308 PLIF). The results of our analysis revealed that patients who underwent PLIF had significantly higher fusion rates. No statistically significant difference was identified in terms of clinical outcomes, complication rates, revision rates, operation time or blood loss. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comparison between PLF and PLIF based on RCTs. Although PLIF had higher fusion rates, both fusion methods achieve similar clinical outcomes with equal complication rate, revision rate, operation time and blood loss at 1-year minimum follow-up.

Neglected flexor tendon injury for 10 years, un-usual finding and one stage repair without free tendon graft: Case report.

INTRODUCTION: In delayed or neglected cases of flexor tendon injury, reconstruction of flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) is usually performed using free tendon graft due to the retraction of tendon ends and shortening of the tendon. Flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS), palmaris longus or plantaris tendons can be used as a free tendon graft [1-3]. PRESENTATION OF CASE: This is a case report of female patient 17 years old with neglected cut of her left Ring finger's FDP and FDS tendons zone II with suspected concomitant digital nerve injury, the injury was neglected for 10 years in the patient's non-dominant hand. DISCUSSION: Upon exploration unusual finding of spontaneous healing of the proximal stumps of FDS and FDP tendons raised the idea of doing the repair one stage without free graft by using pedicled intra-synovial graft from the sublimis tendon to reconstruct the FDP tendon. The patient after 4 months follow-up and after completion of the physiotherapy program regained the ability to actively flex her finger to near full flexion with improved function and cosmesis. CONCLUSION: Delayed flexor tendon reconstruction in neglected cases is still offering good results even after long periods of delay provided that the finger's joints are still supple and mobile.