Augmented Microfracture Technique Versus Microfracture in Talar Cartilage Restoration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety between the microfracture (MFx) and augmented microfracture (MFx+) techniques for articular cartilage defects of the talus (OLTs). PubMed and EMBASE were searched from January 1950 to October 2020. Only randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and observational studies (retrospective and prospective) applying MFx and MFx+ techniques to treat talar cartilage defects were selected. Ten trials with 492 patients were included. There was significant difference in final American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score (AOFAS) (mean difference [MD] = 7.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.70-10.44; p < .01), AOFAS change (MD = 7.97; 95% CI, 4.27-11.66; p < .01), visual analog scale (VAS) change score (MD = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29-0.59; p < .01), Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) score (MD = 12.51; 95% CI, 7.16-17.86; p < .01), complication (RR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.16-0.69; p < .01), and revision (Relative risk = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.77; p < .05), between the MFx and MFx+ groups. No significant difference was observed for final VAS pain score (MD = -0.53; 95% CI, -1.2 to 1.05; p = .13) and Tegner scale (MD = 0.31; 95% CI, -1.05 to 1.66; p = .66) in either group. Our results suggest that augmented microfracture is superior to microfracture alone in the treatment of talar OLTs based on the AOFAS, MOCART, VAS score, complication rate, and revision ratio. Therefore, microfracture with augmentation should be considered as a treatment for OLTs of talus. However, more randomized trials are still required to determine the long-term superiority of MFx+.

Bone transport versus acute shortening for the management of infected tibial bone defects: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment for infected tibial bone defects can be a great challenge for the orthopaedic surgeon. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy between bone transport (BT) and the acute shortening technique (AST) in the treatment of infected tibial bone defects. METHODS: A literature survey was conducted by searching the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases together with the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and the Wanfang database for articles published up to 9 August 2019. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was adapted to evaluate the bias and risks in each eligible study. The data of the external fixation index (EFI), bone grafting, bone and functional results, complications, bone union time and characteristics of participants were extracted. RevMan v.5.3 was used to perform relevant statistical analyses. Standard mean difference (SMD) was used for continuous variables and relative risk (RR) for the binary variables. All of the variables included its 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Five studies, including a total of 199 patients, were included in the study. Statistical significance was observed in the EFI (SMD = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25, 1.01, P = 0.001) and bone grafting (RR = 0.26, 95%CI: 0.15, 0.46, P < 0.00001); however, no significance was observed in bone union time (SMD = - 0.02, 95% CI: - 0.39, 0.35, P = 0.92), bone results (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.91, 1.04, P = 0.41), functional results (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.08, P = 0.50) and complications (RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.41, 1.39, P = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: AST is preferred from the aspect of minimising the treatment period, whereas BT is superior to AST for reducing bone grafting. Due to the limited number of trials, the meaning of this conclusion should be taken with caution for infected tibial bone defects.

Antegrade intramedullary nail versus plate fixation in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures: An update meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus regarding the surgical treatment of humeral shaft fracture. The present meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety between antegrade intramedullary nailing (IMN) and plating for humeral shaft fracture. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Clinical Trails, Ovid, ISI Web of Science, and Chinese databases including WanFang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched through March 10, 2019. The Review Manager software was adapted to perform statistical analysis and relative risk (RR) were used for the binary variables, and weighted mean difference and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used to measure the continuous variables. Each variable included its 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 15 trials with 839 patients were included in the analysis. There was significant difference between IMN group and plate group in blood loss (SMD = 3.49, 95% CI: 1.19, 5.79, P = .003) and postoperative infections (RR = 3.04, 95% CI: 1.49, 6.24, P = .002). Additionally, significant difference was observed between minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) group and IMN group in nonunion rate (RR = 3.20, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.84, P = .02). Statistical significance was also observed between the open reduction plate fixation group and IMN group in restriction of shoulder and elbow joints results (RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.26, 0.96, P < .05). No significant difference was observed for the operation time, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, nerve injury, delayed union, reoperation in either group. CONCLUSION: IMN may be superior to plate in reducing blood loss and postoperative infections for the treatment of humeral shaft fracture. However, MIPO was superior to IMN group in nonunion and equal to IMN in other parameters. Further research is required and future studies should include analysis of assessments at different stages and follow-up after removal of the implants.