Outcomes of lower trapezius transfer with hamstring tendons for irreparable rotator cuff tears.

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of the transfer of the lower trapezius with a graft from hamstring tendons in the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tears . Level IV; Case Series; Treatment Study. Methods: Ten patients diagnosed with irreparable tears of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons, were evaluated retrospectively -preoperatively, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. They underwent transfer of the prolonged lower trapezius with an autologous graft of the knee flexor tendons. Results: The Shoulder Subjective Value increased from 47 (preoperative) to 71 (1 year after surgery), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score increased from 26.63 to 75.24. Pain improved from 7.9 to 2.5 on the Visual Analogue Scale. The mean lateral rotation improved from 31° to 51°, flexion from 84° to 122°, and abduction from 76° to 101°. These results have not changed significantly between 6 and 12 months. Discussion: The transfer of the lower trapezius with autologous grafts from the hamstring tendons showed good results in patients under 65 years of age with irreparable rotator cuff tears . Longer follow-up and a greater number of cases are necessary to confirm the efficacy of the transfer.

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.

Botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of lower limb spasticity in children with cerebral palsy.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common cause of physical disabilities in children in high-income countries. Spasticity is the most common motor disturbance in CP. Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) is considered the first-line treatment for focal spasticity in people with CP. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of BoNT-A compared to other treatments used in the management of lower limb spasticity in children with CP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, four other databases, and two trial registers in October 2018. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews and contacted experts in the field. We did not apply any date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of children with CP, aged between birth and 19 years, treated with BoNT-A injections in the lower limb muscles compared to other interventions. The primary outcomes were gait analysis and function. The secondary outcomes were joint range of motion, quality of life, satisfaction, spasticity, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and rated the quality of the evidence using GRADE. A third review author arbitrated in case of disagreements. We conducted meta-analyses of available data whenever possible, analysing dichotomous data with risk ratios (RR), and continuous data with mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We considered a 5% significance level for all analyses.Whenever possible, we analysed outcomes at the time points at which they were assessed: short term (2 to 8 weeks); medium term (12 to 16 weeks); and long term (> 24 weeks). MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 randomised controlled trials assessing 1508 participants. Most studies included ambulatory patients with more than one motor type of CP, and with a mean age of between three and seven years. There was a slight predominance of males.Studies compared BoNT-A in the lower limb muscles to usual care or physiotherapy (14 studies), placebo or sham (12 studies), serial casting (4 studies), or orthoses (1 study).We rated studies as at high or unclear risk of bias mainly due to random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment.BoNT-A versus usual care or physiotherapyBoNT-A might improve overall gait scores at medium-term follow-up (MD 2.80, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.05; 1 study, 40 children; very low-quality evidence) and is moderately effective at improving function at short-term (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95; 2 studies, 123 children) and medium-term (SMD 1.04, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 4 studies, 191 children) follow-up (all very low-quality evidence).BoNT-A improves ankle range of motion, satisfaction, and ankle plantarflexors spasticity at one or more time points (very low-quality evidence).The proportion of adverse events in the BoNT-A group was 0.37 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.66; I2 = 95%; very low-quality evidence). No adverse events were reported in the control group.BoNT-A versus placebo or shamBoNT-A improves overall gait scores at short-term (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.37, P = 0.006; 4 studies, 261 assessments) and medium-term (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.74, P < 0.001; 3 studies, 248 assessments) follow-up, and may improve peak ankle dorsiflexion in stance (MD 15.90 degrees, 95% CI 4.87 to 26.93, P = 0.005; 1 study, 19 children) and in swing (MD 10.20 degrees, 95% CI 4.01 to 16.39, P = 0.001; 1 study, 19 children) at short-term follow-up (all moderate-quality evidence).BoNT-A is not more effective than placebo or sham at improving function at short-term (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.83, P = 0.42; 4 studies, 305 children) or long-term (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.35, P = 0.76; 2 studies, 91 children) follow-up, but has a small positive effect at medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.49, P = 0.01; 5 studies, 327 children) (all moderate-quality evidence).BoNT-A improves passive ankle range of motion, satisfaction, and ankle plantarflexors spasticity at one or more time points (moderate-quality evidence).There was no difference between groups in the rate of adverse events at short-term follow-up (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.93, P = 0.21; 12 studies, 918 children; moderate-quality evidence).BoNT-A versus serial castingThere was no difference between groups for overall gait scores at short-term (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.66 to 1.66); medium-term (MD 0.65, 95% CI -1.21 to 2.51); or long-term (MD 0.46, 95% CI -1.33 to 2.25) follow-up in one study with 18 children (moderate-quality evidence).BoNT-A improved instrumented gait analysis only in terms of ankle dorsiflexion at initial contact (MD 6.59 degrees, 95% CI 1.39 to 11.78, P = 0.01; 2 studies, 47 children). There was no difference between groups for peak ankle dorsiflexion in stance and swing, and gait speed at any time point (moderate- and low-quality evidence).BoNT-A is not more effective than serial casting at improving function, ankle range of motion, and spasticity at any time point (moderate- and low-quality evidence).BoNT-A is not associated with a higher risk of adverse events than serial casting (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.03 to 11.03; 3 studies, 64 children; low-quality evidence).BoNT-A versus orthosesThere was no difference between groups for function at medium-term follow-up (MD 11.14, 95% CI -0.05 to 22.33; 1 study, 43 children), but BoNT-A is more effective than orthoses at improving hip range of motion and hip adductors spasticity (all very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the evidence was low or very low for most of the outcomes analysed. We found limited evidence that BoNT-A is more effective than placebo or a non-placebo control at improving gait, joint range of motion, satisfaction, and lower limb spasticity in children with CP, whereas the results for function were contradictory. The rate of adverse events with BoNT-A is similar to placebo. BoNT-A is not more effective than ankle serial casting to treat ankle contractures for any of the assessed outcomes, but is more effective than orthotics at improving range of motion and spasticity.

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.