Operative versus non-operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Humeral shaft fractures are common but debate still occurs as to whether these are best managed operatively or non-operatively. We sought to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies to clarify the optimal treatment. METHODS: We performed a search for all randomised and non-randomised comparative studies on humeral shaft fracture. We included only those with an operative and non-operative cohort in adult patients. We undertook a meta-analysis of the following outcome measures: nonunion, malunion, delayed union, iatrogenic nerve injury and infection. Non-operative management was with a functional brace. RESULTS: Non-operative management resulted in a significantly higher nonunion rate of 17.6% compared to 6.3% with fixation. Operative management had a significantly higher iatrogenic nerve injury rate of 3.4% and infection rate of 3.7%. All nonunions within the included studies went on to union after plate fixation. There was no significant difference in delayed union or patient reported outcome measures. There was a significantly increased risk of malunion with non-operative treatment however this did not correlate with the outcome. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that in the majority of cases, humeral shaft fractures can be managed with non-operative treatment, and any subsequent nonunion should be treated with plate fixation.

Core Decompression for Post-Arthroscopic Osteonecrosis of the Lateral Tibial Plateau.

Post-arthroscopic osteonecrosis is a rare complication that mostly occurs in the over 50s. It most commonly occurs in the medial femoral condyle, followed by the lateral femoral condyle then medial tibial plateau. We report the first case of lateral tibial plateau osteonecrosis in a young patient after arthroscopic lateral meniscectomy. This patient developed progressively deteriorating symptoms after uncomplicated arthroscopy; with a subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showing bone oedema and some overlying cartilage damage. Conservative measures were unsuccessful, so core decompression was undertaken. This has resulted in improved symptoms and subsequent follow-up MRI demonstrates resolution of oedema with no progressive cartilage change. This is a rare condition with a poor outcome, usually resulting in arthroplasty. This technique may work in the younger patient. However, since post-arthroscopic osteonecrosis is so rare in this age group, there is limited evidence for its success, and it should be evaluated with further study.

Low-level laser therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The role of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in the management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is controversial. While some trials have shown distinct advantages of LLLT over placebo and some other non-surgical treatments, other trials have not. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of LLLT versus placebo and versus other non-surgical interventions in the management of CTS. SEARCH METHODS: On 9 December 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies. We checked the references of primary studies and review articles, and contacted trial authors for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion RCTs (irrespective of blinding, publication status or language) comparing LLLT versus placebo or non-surgical treatment for the management of CTS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified trials for inclusion and extracted the data. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model, calculated using Review Manager. For dichotomous data, we reported risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 22 trials randomising 1153 participants that were eligible for inclusion; nine trials (525 participants, 256 randomised to LLLT) compared LLLT with placebo, two (150 participants, 75 randomised to LLLT) compared LLLT with ultrasound, one compared LLLT with placebo and LLLT with ultrasound, two compared LLLT with steroid injection, and one trial each compared LLLT with other non-surgical interventions: fascial manipulation, application of a pulsed magnetic field, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), steroid injection, tendon gliding exercises, and applying a wrist splint combined with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Three studies compared LLLT as part of multiple interventions. Risk of bias varied across the studies, but was high or unclear in most assessed domains in most studies. Most studies were small, with few events, and effect estimates were generally imprecise and inconsistent; the combination of these factors led us to categorise the quality of evidence for most outcomes as very low or, for a small number, low. At short-term follow-up (less than three months), there was very low-quality evidence for any effect over placebo of LLLT on CTS for the primary outcome of Symptom Severity Score (scale 1 to 5, higher score represents worsening; MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.06) or Functional Status Scale (scale 1 to 5, higher score represents worsened disability; MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.09). At short-term (less than three months) follow-up, we are uncertain whether LLLT results in a greater improvement than placebo in visual analogue score (VAS) pain (scale 0 to 10, higher score represents worsening; MD -1.47, 95% CI -2.36 to -0.58) and several aspects of nerve conduction studies (motor nerve latency: higher score represents worsening; MD -0.09 ms, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.03; range 3.1 ms to 4.99 ms; sensory nerve latency: MD -0.10 ms, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.06; range 1.8 ms to 3.9 ms), as the quality of the evidence was very low. When compared with placebo at short-term follow-up, LLLT may slightly improve grip strength (MD 2.58 kg, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.95; range 14.2 kg to 25.23 kg) and finger-pinch strength (MD 0.94 kg, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.44; range 4.35 kg to 5.7 kg); however, the quality of evidence was low. Only VAS pain and finger-pinch strength results reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) as previously published. We are uncertain about the effect of LLLT in comparison to ultrasound at short-term follow-up for improvement in VAS pain (MD 2.81, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.40) and motor nerve latency (MD 0.61 ms, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95), as the quality of evidence was very low. When compared with ultrasound at short-term follow-up, LLLT may result in slightly less improvement in finger-pinch strength (MD -0.71 kg, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.49) and motor nerve amplitude (MD -1.90 mV, 95% CI -3.63 to -0.18; range 7.10 mV to 9.70 mV); however, the quality of evidence was low. There was insufficient evidence to assess the long-term benefits of LLLT versus placebo or ultrasound. There was insufficient evidence to show whether LLLT is better or worse in the management of CTS than other non-surgical interventions. For all outcomes reported within these other comparisons, the quality of evidence was very low. There was insufficient evidence to assess adverse events, as only one study reported this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is of very low quality and we found no data to support any clinical effect of LLLT in treating CTS. Only VAS pain and finger-pinch strength met previously published MCIDs but these are likely to be overestimates of effect given the small studies and significant risk of bias. There is low or very low-quality evidence to suggest that LLLT is less effective than ultrasound in the management of CTS based on short-term, clinically significant improvements in pain and finger-pinch strength. There is insufficient evidence to support LLLT being better or worse than any other type of non-surgical treatment in the management of CTS. Any further research of LLLT should be definitive, blinded, and of high quality.

Does a titanium-coated polyethylene press-fit cup give reliable midterm results?

BACKGROUND: Uncemented acetabular components have demonstrated low revision rates and high patient satisfaction but with concerns regarding increased costs compared with monoblock cups. Some newer lower-cost uncemented monoblock options have become available in the last decade, but limited data are available on their performance. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does an uncemented, titanium-backed all-polyethylene acetabular cup provide reliable fixation? (2) What is the frequency and what are the causes for revision with this cup? METHODS: Between 2004 and 2008, we elected to use an uncemented, titanium-backed all-polyethylene acetabular cup in older patients with limited physical demands. We performed 615 hip replacements in 550 patients with greater than 5 years of clinical and radiographic followup. When patients who were dead (80 hips in 75 patients), lost to followup (98 hips in 93 patients), or revised (three hips in three patients) were excluded, there were 434 hips in 379 patients for comparison of the postoperative and 5-year radiographs. Two observers not involved in the index surgical procedures (NH, HS) assessed radiographs for signs of migration or loosening. Some degree of early movement sometimes is seen before cup stabilization; however, to be conservative, we defined cups with greater than 3° of change of position (even if they subsequently stabilized) as potentially at risk and report them separately. Revision surgery, time from the index procedure, and the reason for revision were recorded from the New Zealand Joint Registry. RESULTS: By 5 years there was a median change in inclination of 2° (range, 0°-13°; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-2.4; p < 0.001) and 2° of anteversion (range, 0°-11°; 95% CI, 2.0-2.4; p < 0.001). Although at last followup all cups appeared to have stabilized with no radiolucent lines or medial migration, 22% of the cups (94 of 434) had moved more than 3° and so were deemed to be potentially at risk. There were 11 revision procedures (of 429 hips; 2.5%) of which six were for recurrent dislocation, four for femoral fracture, and one for femoral loosening to give an overall all-cause revision rate for all components of 0.25 per 100 component years (95% CI, 0.13-0.43). No revisions were performed for acetabular loosening. CONCLUSIONS: The short- to medium-term results of this all-polyethylene monoblock cup demonstrated a low frequency of revision. However, 94 cups were identified as potentially at risk based on movement of > 3° before apparent stabilization. Although those patients seem to be doing well enough now, the current duration of followup may not be sufficient to know that these cups will be durable, because other ongrowth designs have demonstrated a high frequency of late failure after apparent early success. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Modulated Raman spectroscopy for enhanced identification of bladder tumor cells in urine samples.

Standard Raman spectroscopy (SRS) is a noninvasive technique that is used in the biomedical field to discriminate between normal and cancer cells. However, the presence of a strong fluorescence background detracts from the use of SRS in real-time clinical applications. Recently, we have reported a novel modulated Raman spectroscopy (MRS) technique to extract the Raman spectra from the background. In this paper, we present the first application of MRS to the identification of human urothelial cells (SV-HUC-1) and bladder cancer cells (MGH) in urine samples. These results are compared to those obtained by SRS. Classification using the principal component analysis clearly shows that MRS allows discrimination between Raman spectra of SV-HUC-1 and MGH cells with high sensitivity (98%) and specificity (95%). MRS is also used to distinguish between SV-HUC-1 and MGH cells after exposure to urine for up to 6 h. We observe a marked change in the MRS of SV-HUC-1 and MGH cells with time in urine, indicating that the conditions of sample collection will be important for the application of this methodology to clinical urine samples.