Early rehabilitation vs. conventional immobilization in nonoperative treatment of proximal humeral fracture: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Fractures of the proximal humerus (PHF) are commonly treated conservatively. Evidence suggests that a period of immobilization of one week or less may lead to some advantages compared to a traditional 3-4 weeks of immobilization. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the clinical and radiological results in the case of early rehabilitation vs. delayed rehabilitation after PHF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In July 2023, a literature search was carried out on the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases to identify all the randomized trials comparing early rehabilitation vs. delayed rehabilitation after PHF. The following data were extracted from each included study: patients' demographics, study design and level of evidence, follow-up times, treatment groups, evaluation scores adopted, and overall clinical and radiological findings. The quality of the trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment. RESULTS: A total of 5 studies, including 378 patients and dealing with early vs. delayed rehabilitation in case of conservative treatment of PHF, were included in this study. Early rehabilitation was started within 1 week and consisted mainly of pendulum exercise and progressive passive mobilization. Early rehabilitation was associated with better pain and functional scores within the first 3 months in 3 studies. No difference in pain or function was reported at 6 months or longer follow-up, and no differences in complications rate were observed between early vs. delayed rehabilitation groups. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that early mobilization within one week in case of conservative treatment of PHF leads to improved function recovery and reduced pain, especially in the first months of rehabilitation, without differences at longer follow-up and without increasing complications rate. Reducing immobilization time could accelerate function recovery and regaining independence in daily life activities.

Injection of biologic agents for treating severe knee osteoarthritis: is there a chance for a good outcome? A systematic review of clinical evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common degenerative joint disease and the leading cause of disability in the adult population worldwide. The knee is the most prevalent site of symptomatic arthritis. Treatment options for OA include drugs, surgery and, more recently, biological treatments. Injectable ortho-biological treatments include autologous and more rarely heterologous preparations employed inside and outside the operating room to assist bone and soft tissue regeneration. Our aim was to analyze the rationale for use of injectable ortho-biological treatments such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and mesenchymal cells from bone marrow, adipose tissue, and placenta/umbilical cord, in patients with severe OA of the knee (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search in PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar databases was performed using the following keywords: 'knee osteoarthritis' and 'biological treatment' or 'PRP' or 'adipose' or 'mesenchymal' or 'staminal' or 'stem cells'. Manual research throughout the reference lists of all retrieved articles was further conducted. RESULTS: A total of 16 articles was selected for this systematic review. The rationale for use of each ortho-biological treatment was discussed. The clinical application showed different therapeutic protocols, different follow-up periods, different outcomes analyzed and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Our study did not demonstrate uniform beneficial effects for the use of injectable ortho-biological. This prevents any advice for routine application in the treatment of severe knee OA (K-L IV). Further prospective clinical trials with randomization, larger sample size, and preliminary power calculation are needed to justify the use of injectable biologic agents in grade IV knee OA in everyday practice.