RESUMO
BACKGROUND: It is essential to distinguish between symptomatic- and asymptomatic radiographic acromioclavicular (AC) osteoarthritis (OA) because AC-targeted physical examinations are dubious. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of a preoperative AC injection in discriminating between symptomatic- and asymptomatic radiographic AC OA based on patient arthroscopic distal clavicle resection (aDCR) outcomes. METHODS: Forty-eight patients who underwent aDCR for AC OA were included. Their satisfaction was objectified using a 5-point Likert scale and patient willingness to repeat the surgery. The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) were used to assess postoperative shoulder function and pain. Patients were subdivided into groups based on their good or minimal reaction to an AC injection (good reaction: ≥7 consecutive days of pain reduction, Minimal reaction: <7 consecutive days of pain reduction). RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients had a good reaction and 21 patients had a minimal reaction to the AC injection (median follow-up, 45.0 months; range, 31.0-52.8 months). No significant differences were found in level of satisfaction (P=0.234) or willingness to repeat the surgery (P=0.861). No significant differences were found in OSS (P=0.612), SSV (P=0.641), NRS at rest (P=0.684) or during activity (P=0.422). CONCLUSIONS: This study found no significant differences between patients with a good reaction or a minimal reaction to an AC injection after aDCR surgery. The outcomes of this study seem to suggest that a distinction between symptomatic and asymptomatic radiographic AC OA is unnecessary, as all patients were equally satisfied with the outcome. Level of evidence: IV.
RESUMO
Background: The influence of bearing on revision, especially in press-fit modular cup total hip arthroplasty (THA), remains underexposed. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov in line with the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was overall revision between ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and all sorts of ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoPE) bearings. As secondary outcomes complications and reasons for revision were compared between bearings. Outcomes were presented in subgroups based on study design (randomized controlled trials (RCT), non-randomized comparative, and registry studies). The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration's tool and the MINORS criteria. Results: This meta-analysis included twelve RCTs, three non-randomized comparative studies and two registry studies, including 38,772 THAs (10,909 CoPE and 27,863 CoC). Overall revision showed a lower risk in CoPE compared to CoC in the two registry studies (HR 0.71 (95%CI 0.53; 0.99)) (very low-quality GRADE evidence). In RCTs and non-randomized comparative studies, no difference was observed (low-quality GRADE evidence). Loosening, dislocation, infection, and postoperative periprosthetic fracture showed no significant differences in risk ratio for all designs. Conclusion: The lower risk of overall revision in registry studies of primary THA with a press-fit modular cup using CoPE bearing compared to CoC should be considered preliminary since this outcome was just slightly significant, based on very low-quality GRADE evidence and based on only two studies with several limitations. Since no difference was observed in the other methodological designs and the separate reasons for revision showed no significant difference in all designs either, no preference for CoC or CoPE can be expressed, and therefore both seem suitable options based on the available literature. More comparative long-term studies are needed to confirm the potential advantages of wear-reduction of both bearings since the currently available literature is limited.
