ABSTRACT
Aim: This article aims to compare the outcomes between open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and external fixation (ExFix) in tibial plateau fractures. Background: Open reduction and internal fixation and external fixation are common methods for managing tibial plateau fractures without a consensus of choice. Materials and methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, CINAHL®, Scopus, and Embase were searched. Clinical studies in humans comparing ExFix and ORIF for tibial plateau fractures were included. Case reports, pathological, and biomechanical studies were excluded. Two investigators reviewed the studies independently, and any discrepancies were resolved. The quality and heterogeneity of each study were assessed in addition to calculating the odds ratio (OR) of the surgical outcomes and complications at a 95% confidence interval, with p <0.05 as statistical significance. Results: Of the 14 included studies, one was a randomised trial, one was a prospective study, and 12 were retrospective studies. The 865 fractures identified across the studies constituted 458 (52.9%) in the ExFix group and 407 (47.1%) in the ORIF group. Most studies indicated a better outcome for ORIF as compared to ExFix. Open reduction and internal fixation had a lower incidence of superficial infection and postoperative osteoarthritis, while ExFix revealed a lower proportion with heterotopic ossification (HTO). Conclusion: ExFix has a higher rate of superficial infections and osteoarthritis, whereas ORIF has a higher incidence of HTO. Larger studies are needed to compare outcomes and investigate the findings of this study further. Clinical significance: This up-to-date meta-analysis on tibial plateau management will help surgeons make evidence-based decisions regarding the use of ORIF versus ExFix. How to cite this article: Naja AS, Bouji N, Eddine MN, et al. A Meta-analysis Comparing External Fixation against Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for the Management of Tibial Plateau Fractures. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2022;17(2):105-116.
ABSTRACT
Background: Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSCs) have recently been studied for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. The goal is pain reduction and improvement of joint function leading to superior health-related quality of life. Objectives: The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive meta-analysis assessing the evidence on the use of ADMSCs in knee osteoarthritis. Design: This is a Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data Sources and Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials using ADMSCs to treat patients with knee osteoarthritis. Only trials comparing ADMSCs to placebo or conservative treatment were included. The outcomes studied were improvement in functional, pain, and quality of life scores along with radiographic findings. Results: A total of four trials were included, representing 138 patients with knee osteoarthritis. WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) scores favored ADMSCs with a statistically and clinically significant difference over controls at 6- and 12-month follow-ups (p value < 0.0001). Pain, functional, and quality of life scores also favored ADMSCs at 12-month follow-up (p value < 0.0001). Conclusion: ADMSCs are effective in treating knee osteoarthritis symptoms as observed by functional and pain improvements. Furthermore, ADMSCs injection showed improvement of cartilage integrity, which indicates the potential for regenerating the knee cartilage. Future trials with larger number of patients and longer follow-up periods would help to elaborate further the therapeutic potential of ADMSCs. Plain Language Summary: Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells use in knee osteoarthritis Knee osteoarthritis is an extremely common disease that causes damage of the lining of the knee joint.This will lead to pain and limited range of motion of the knee hence limited functionality.Multiple treatments are used currently for knee osteoarthritis which all aim at slowing down the progression and limiting the need for knee replacement surgery.Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSCs) are stem cells harvested from the fat around the belly. These stem cells have the potential to be converted into cells of a certain origin (cartilage, muscle, fat).Many studies are being performed to see whether these cells can transform to cartilage and repair the damaged knee joint.In this study, we tried to find how the results of different studies comparing the usual treatments for knee osteoarthritis with that of ADMSCs compared.We were mostly interested in the pain, functional, stiffness, and quality of life scores.We also reviewed the MRI findings to find out whether the lining of the knee joint improved.Four studies were included with 138 patients having knee osteoarthritis.WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) score which is a self-administered questionnaire evaluating hip and knee osteoarthritis, showed better results in patients receiving ADMSC injections compared with other usual treatments at 12-month follow-up.Pain, functional, stiffness, and quality of life scores also showed better results in ADMSCs at 12-month follow-up.MRI images also showed better cartilage lining in the patients treated with ADMSCs.We concluded that ADMSCs are both effective and safe to be used in treating knee osteoarthritis symptoms. However, studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to better assess the regenerative potential of ADMSCs.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Myofascial pain is one of the most common causes of regional pain with no definitive treatment. This randomized clinical trial was conducted to assess the efficacy of deep cervical plexus block versus placebo injection (sham block) for the treatment of myofascial neck and shoulder pain in terms of analgesic consumption and pain during a follow-up period of 2 weeks after the block. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group I (block) received deep cervical plexus block and group II (placebo) received normal saline. A total of 66 patients were included in the study, 34 patients in the block group and 32 patients in the placebo group. RESULTS: Two weeks after the intervention, the average pain duration was significantly lower in the block group: 1.38±1.39 versus 5.25±1.72 for the block and placebo groups, respectively (P<0.0001). Pain intensity was significantly less in the block group such that 2.9% of patients in the block group had severe pain compared with 53.1% of patients in the placebo group (P<0.0001). Two weeks after receiving the block, the mean opioid consumption calculated as tramadol equivalent was 21.1±44.2 mg compared with 166.1±118.8 mg for the block and placebo groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that patients with a longer history of pain had a higher pain score after 2 weeks. The possibility of recovery is affected by pain duration as patients with a history of chronic pain were least affected by the block. DISCUSSION: This technique could be an alternative to pharmacological and other nonpharmacological treatments for myofascial pain.
