Cemented vs Uncemented hemiarthroplasties for femoral neck fractures: An overlapping systematic review and evidence appraisal.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study is to assess the methodology of overlapping systematic reviews related to cemented vs uncemented hip hemiarthroplasties for the treatment of femoral neck fractures to find the study with the best evidence. Also, we assess the gaps in methodology and information to help with direction of future studies. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in September 2022 using Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Clinical outcome data and characteristics of each study were extracted to see which treatment had better favorability. The outcomes and characteristics extracted from each study includes, first author, search date, publication journal and date, number of studies included, databases, level of evidence, software used, subgroup analyses that were conducted, and heterogeneity with the use of I2 statistics Methodological quality information was extracted from each study using four different methodologic scores (Oxford Levels of Evidence; Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR); Quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUROM); Oxman and Guyatt. After that, the Jadad decision algorithm was used to identify which studies in our sample contained the best available evidence. Finally, overlap of each systematic review was assessed using Corrected Covered Area (CCA) to look at redundancy and research waste among the systematic reviews published on the topic. RESULTS: After screening, 12 studies were included in our sample. For the Oxford Levels of Evidence, we found that all the studies were Level I evidence. For the QUORUM assessment, we had 1 study with the highest score of 18. Additionally, we did the Oxman and Guyatt assessment, where we found 4 studies with a maximum score of 6. Finally, we did an AMSTAR assessment and found 2 studies with a score of 9. After conducting the methodological scores; the authors determined that Li. L et al 2021 had the highest quality. In addition, it was found that the CCA found among the primary studies in each systematic review calculated to .22. Any CCA above .15 is considered "very high overlap". CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence suggests that Cemented HAs are better at preventing Prosthesis-related complications. Conversely, the best evidence also suggests that Cemented HA also results in longer operative time and increased intraoperative blood loss. When conducting future systematic reviews related to the topic, we ask that authors restrict conducting another systematic review until new evidence emerges so as not to confuse the clinical decision-making of physicians.

Network meta-analysis: What is its purpose in Orthopaedic literature?

Systematic reviews, of level-I primary literature, are the gold standard for the formation of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Orthopaedic Surgery. When systematic reviews have multiple groups of data, meta-analyses can be conducted to analyse the direct comparison of the data points (pairwise meta-analysis). Over recent years, statisticians have created a new statistical model called network meta-analyses that can be applied to systematic reviews. network meta-analyses allow for comparison of different treatment outcomes that may or may not have been directly assessed through level-I primary studies. network meta-analyses are appearing more and more in Orthopaedic Surgery literature; therefore, in this article, we discuss what a Network Meta-analysis is and its application in Orthopaedics.

The presence of person-centered language in orthopedic-related amputation research: a cross-sectional analysis.

CONTEXT: Amputations are routine in orthopedics, specifically during trauma and when patients have recurrent surgical site infections. When undergoing amputations, patients must combat the psychosocial factors associated with the loss of an extremity, including stigmatization. OBJECTIVES: This study analyzes the presence of person-centered language (PCL) within amputation-related orthopedic publications in the top orthopedic journals. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis with a database search on February 14, 2021 utilizing PubMed. Utilizing a previously published search string, we isolated studies that were published in the top 20 orthopedic journals based on the Google h5-index. In addition to the top 20 orthopedic journals, we included the top two hand and foot & ankle journals in our search to incorporate more amputation literature. Our search yielded 687 returns. The sample was then randomized, and the first 300 studies that fit our inclusion criteria were examined for prespecified non-PCL terminology. RESULTS: Our results show that 157 (52.2%) studies were adherent to PCL according to the American Medical Association's Manual of Style 10th Edition (AMAMS). Of the 143 (47.7%) studies that were not adherent to PCL, 51 studies (35.7%) had more than one type of non-PCL language. The term "amputee," which is being labeled as identity-first language (IFL), was found in 101 articles (33.7%). Further investigation found that 73.3% (74/101) of the studies containing IFL were found to have other non-PCL terms. Of the other studies in the sample, non-PCL was found 34.7% (88/199) of the time. This analysis was done due to the discrepancies in stigmatization of the term "amputee." No statistical association was found between adherence to PCL and study characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that amputation literature within the top orthopedic journals has limited adherence to PCL. Additionally, the use of the term "amputee," which is widely accepted by the amputation community, resulted in a greater rate of non-PCL terminology within orthopedic amputation literature. Efforts should be implemented within orthopedics to avoid the use of stigmatizing language, regarding individuals that underwent amputations, to minimize psychosocial stressors.

Prevalence of Deep Surgical Site Infection After Repair of Periarticular Knee Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Surgical management of periarticular knee fractures can be challenging, and adverse outcomes may be severe. Recent literature indicates that the rate of periarticular knee surgical site infection (SSI) may range from 2% to 88% depending on the fracture site. Objective: To examine the prevalence of deep SSI and the rate of septic arthritis after surgical repair of fractures around the knee. Data Sources: The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from their inception to July 1, 2018. Study Selection: Eligible studies had to specifically report deep SSI rates and include fractures in the distal femur, patella, tibial plateau, or proximal tibia. Risk factors that were associated with increased the risk of deep SSI were also examined. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were extracted by multiple investigators. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was used for the pooling of data, using either random-effects or fixed-effects models, with respect to the degree of statistical heterogeneity present. Data analyses were conducted in October 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall prevalence of deep SSI after periarticular knee fracture repair. The secondary outcomes were the overall prevalence of septic arthritis, risk factors associated with deep SSI, and the most commonly cultured bacteria specimens found periarticular knee infections. Results: Of 6928 articles screened, 117 articles met inclusion criteria and were included in analysis. Among 11 432 patients included in analysis, 653 patients (5.7%) experienced deep SSIs, most commonly among patients with proximal tibia fractures (56 of 872 patients [6.4%]). Among studies that included information on septic arthritis, 38 of 1567 patients (2.4%) experienced septic arthritis. The 2 most commonly reported bacteria were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, found in 67 SSIs, and methicillin-susceptible S aureus, found in 53 SSIs. Sixty-two studies (53.0%) in the sample received a Coleman Methodological Score of poor (<50 points). Conclusions and Relevance: Deep SSIs occurred in nearly 6% of periarticular knee fracture repairs, and 2.4% of SSIs were associated with septic arthritis. Surgeons managing these injuries should be vigilant when wounds are not pristine. Efforts should be made to elevate the quality of research conducted not only in this subject but also in orthopedic surgery as a whole.