Does the saline load test still have a role in the orthopaedic world? A systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of Saline load tests (SLTs) to evaluate extension of periarticular wounds into capsule in emergent settings. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the accuracy of the SLT in diagnosing penetrating joint injuries in the elbow, wrist, shoulder, knee, or ankle. RESULTS: The SLT values to determine knee arthrotomies vary from 73.8 mL to 194 mL with sensitivities ranging between 91% and 99% depending on the size of the laceration. A SLT of 30 mL in the ankle yields sensitivities ranging from 95% to 99% in assessing joint penetration. A SLT of 45 mL in the elbow yields a sensitivity of 95% in assessing joint penetration. The addition of methylene blue does not change the sensitivity of the SLT. CONCLUSION: Several studies have demonstrated the utility of the SLT as a diagnostic modality for penetrating joint injuries. However, the literature analyzed in this study was inconclusive and more studies are required to make definitive recommendations. In addition, more studies will be needed on joints other than the knee, pediatric patients, and the use of methylene blue dye in conjunction with SLT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Diagnostic study.

Regenerate bone stimulation following limb lengthening: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Limb lengthening with external fixation is performed to treat patients with leg length discrepancy or short stature. Although the procedure has a high rate of success, one potential drawback from limb lengthening is the amount of time spent in the fixation device while regenerate bone consolidates. Although some studies have assessed different treatment modalities, there has not been a study that has systematically evaluated whether low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) or pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) have significant effects on regenerate bone growth. The purpose of this study was to evaluate these two non-pharmacological treatment options to stimulate regenerate bone, and to assess whether they affect the treatment time in limb lengthening. METHODS: Utilizing the electronic databases Medline, Embase and Ovid, we performed a literature search for studies describing the application of LIPUS or PEMF following limb lengthening. With the aid of a statistical software package, Forest-Plots were generated to compare the differences in bone healing index with and without the use of regenerate bone stimulation. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies assessed these two bone stimulation modalities in a cohort of 153 patients. Overall, the mean healing index was 11.7 days/cm faster when using bone stimulation that in the comparison cohorts (33.7 vs 45.4 day, standardized mean difference of 1.16; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Amongst the drawbacks from limb lengthening is the relatively high rate of non- and delayed-union. Several methods, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, have been investigated for their potential to stimulate the growth of regenerate bone. After systematically evaluating the limited and heterogeneous current literature, we found that LIPUS and PEMF both decreased the time for bone healing (healing index in days/cm) of the newly formed regenerate bone in an adequately selected cohort of patients that underwent limb lengthening. However, a high number of complications should be noted, which could be attributed to the lengthening procedure or to the additional bone stimulation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016039024.