No significant difference in early clinical outcomes of custom versus off-the-shelf total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to collect, synthesise and critically appraise findings of clinical studies that report outcomes of custom total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The hypothesis was that, compared to off-the-shelf (OTS) TKA, custom TKA would yield better surgical, clinical and radiographic outcomes. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). On 8 February 2021, two authors independently searched and screened articles using MEDLINE®, Embase® and the Cochrane Library without restriction on date of publication. Findings from eligible articles were narratively synthesised and tabulated, and when ≥ 3 comparative studies reported the same outcome, results were pooled and summarised in forest plots. Quality assessments of the studies were done according to the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklists. RESULTS: A total of 15 articles were eligible for data extraction, of which 9 were case-control studies reporting on 929 custom versus 998 OTS TKA, 5 were case series reporting on results of 587 custom TKA, and 1 was a cross-sectional study reporting on results of 44 custom versus 132 OTS TKA. Five studies that compared early revision rates found the overall effect in favour of OTS TKA (odds ratio (OR), 0.4; p = n.s.) but the result did not reach statistical significance. Four studies found no statistically significant difference in KSS knee (standardised mean difference (SMD), - 0.10; p = n.s.) and function (SMD, 0.03; p = n.s.), and five studies found no statistically significant difference in range of motion (SMD, 0.02; p = n.s.). One study that compared bone-implant fit between custom and three OTS tibial components found no overhang but revealed under-coverage of up to 18% in knees with custom tibial baseplates. CONCLUSION: Custom TKA demonstrated no significant benefits compared to OTS TKA in terms of pooled clinical outcomes, but had considerably higher early revision rates. The findings of the present systematic review and meta-analysis suggest the need for studies with better comparable groups and standardisation of reporting outcomes amongst studies, that could increase the quality of evidence and enable pooling of results in future meta-analyses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Proximal row carpectomy generates better mid- to long-term outcomes than four-corner arthrodesis for post-traumatic wrist arthritis: A meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In posttraumatic wrist arthritis of intermediate severity, two main palliative procedures are used to preserve some mobility in the wrist: proximal row carpectomy (PRC) and scaphoid excision followed by four corner arthrodesis (4CA). Despite satisfactory overall results, the debate continues about which one provides the best results and long-term outcomes, particularly prevention of arthritis progression. Recent comparative studies now provide us with information about mid- and long-term results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results, complications, conversion rate to total wrist arthrodesis and progression to osteoarthritis of PRC versus 4CA in the medium and long term. HYPOTHESIS: The null hypothesis was that there is no significant difference between PRC and 4CA in the clinical results, complications, conversion to total wrist arthrodesis and arthritis progression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was carried out by following the PRISMA guidelines. Included were studies comparing 4CA and PRC for the treatment of post-traumatic wrist arthritis secondary to scapholunate dissociation (SLAC) and scaphoid nonunion (SNAC) with a mean follow-up of 5 years. A search was performed of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases that identified 831 articles. After removing 230 duplicates and excluding 595 articles based on their title and/or abstract, and then adding 1 article manually, 7 articles were included in our analysis. Parameters analyzed were range of motion (ROM), pain, grip strength, functional scores, complications, conversion to total wrist arthrodesis, and arthritis progression. RESULTS: In the 7 articles, 1059 wrists - 582 PRC and 477 4CA - were analyzed with follow-up ranging from 5.2 to 18 years. PRC produced significantly better ROM in flexion (weighted mean difference [WMD]=10.0°; p<0.01) and in ulnar deviation (WMD=8.7°; p<0.01) along with significantly lower complication rates (OR=0.3; p<0.01) and reoperation rates (OR=0.1; p<0.01). There was no significant difference in the conversion rate, grip strength, extension, radial deviation, pain, DASH and PRWE scores. The progression of osteoarthritis could not be analyzed due to lack of data. DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis was the first to include recently published mid- and long-term studies comparing PRC and 4CA. The main finding is that PRC is superior overall with better ROM and a lower complication rate. Another important finding was the absence of differences in grip strength and the conversion rate to total wrist arthrodesis. Unfortunately, the lack of systematic studies on arthritis progression leaves this question unanswered. Our findings must be interpreted cautiously because it was impossible to stratify the cases by etiology and osteoarthritis stage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; systematic review and meta-analysis.

Robot-assisted knee arthroplasty improves component positioning and alignment, but results are inconclusive on whether it improves clinical scores or reduces complications and revisions: a systematic overview of meta-analyses.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic overview was to identify, synthesise and critically appraise findings of meta-analyses on robot-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The hypothesis was that robotic assistance would reduce complications and revision rates, yield better clinical scores, and improve component positioning and alignment. METHODS: Two researchers independently conducted a literature search using Embase®, MEDLINE®, Web of Science, Allied and Complementary Medicine™ and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 2 November 2020 for meta-analyses (Level I-IV) on robotic assistance in UKA and/or TKA. Outcomes were tabulated and reported as weighted mean difference (WMD), risk ratio (RR) or weighted odds ratio (WOR), and were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of ten meta-analyses were identified; four on robot-assisted UKA (n, 1880 robot-assisted vs. 2352 conventional UKA; follow-up, 0 to 60 months), seven on robot-assisted TKA (n, 4567 robot-assisted vs. 5966 conventional TKA; follow-up, 0 to 132 months). Of the meta-analyses on UKA, one found that robotic assistance reduced complication rates (relative risk (RR), 0.62), one found that it improved clinical scores (weighted mean difference (WMD), 19.67), three found that it extended operation times (WMD, 15.7 to 17.1 min), and three found that it improved component positioning and alignment (WMD, - 1.30 to - 3.02 degrees). Of the meta-analyses on TKA, two found that robotic assistance improved clinical scores (WMD, 1.62-1.71), two found that that it extended surgery times (WMD, 21.5-24.26 min), and five found that it improved component positioning and alignment (WMD, - 0.50 to - 10.07 degrees). None of the meta-analyses reported differences in survivorship between robot-assisted versus conventional knee arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted knee arthroplasty enabled more accurate component positioning and placement within target zones, but extended operation time considerably. Although robotic assistance improved component positioning, its benefits regarding clinical scores, patient satisfaction and implant survivorship remains to be confirmed. Finally, this overview revealed that six of the ten meta-analyses were of 'critically low quality', calling for caution when interpreting results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Low mortality from COVID-19 at a nursing facility in France following a combined preventive and active treatment protocol.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to retrospectively describe the evolution of symptoms, infections, and mortality at a nursing facility in France that had implemented a protocol for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: A database was created on 21 March 2020 to store all information related to residents, including co-morbidities, as well as COVID-19 symptoms, incidence, and mortality. Residents followed a COVID-19 protocol, consisting of preventive (administering vitamins and zinc, social distancing, and temperature checks) and active (antibiotics, anticoagulants, and corticosteroids) measures. RT-PCR and serology testing were performed on residents. A new coefficient, named the Zemgor coefficient, was calculated as the haemoglobin-to-albumin ratio at 2 time points 15 days apart, to monitor hypoxemia. RESULTS: In January 2020, the nursing facility housed 192 residents, 75 men and 117 women, aged 80±11. One or more co-morbidities were present in 94% of residents, with the most common being dementia. The COVID-19 protocol provided 61% of residents with anticoagulants, 51%with antibiotics, 21% with oxygen therapy, and 3% with corticosteroids. The COVID-19 incidence was 51% based on presence of COVID-19 symptoms, 35% based on positive RT-PCR (amongst residents tested for RT-PCR) and 41% based on positive serology (amongst residents tested for serology), and the COVID-19 mortality rate was 8%. The Zemgor coefficient was 0.049±0.053 for patients with hypoxemia compared to 0.011±0.041 for patients without hypoxemia (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The protocol for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 implemented at this nursing facility resulted in a COVID-19 incidence and mortality at the lower end of that reported by other nursing facilities.

Does Cup Position at the High Hip Center or Anatomic Hip Center in THA for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip Result in Better Harris Hip Scores and Revision Incidence? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: One goal of THA is to restore the anatomic hip center, which can be achieved in hips with developmental dysplasia by placing cups at the level of the native acetabulum. However, this might require adjuvant procedures such as femoral shortening osteotomy. Another option is to place the cup at the high hip center, potentially reducing surgical complexity. Currently, no clear consensus exists regarding which of these cup positions might offer better functional outcomes or long-term survival. QUESTION/PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review to determine whether (1) functional outcomes as measured by the Harris hip score, (2) revision incidence, and (3) complications that do not result in revision differ based on the position of the acetabular cup (high hip center versus anatomic hip center) in patients undergoing THA for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). METHODS: We performed a systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, including studies comparing the functional outcomes, revision incidence, and complications of primary THA in dysplastic hips with acetabular cups placed at the high hip center versus those placed at the anatomic hip center, over any time frame. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020168183) before commencement. Of 238 records, eight comparative, retrospective nonrandomized studies of interventions were eligible for our systematic review, reporting on 207 hips with cups placed at the high hip center and 268 hips with cups at the anatomic hip center. Risk of bias within eligible studies was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Due to low comparability between studies, data could not be pooled, so these studies were assessed without summary effects. RESULTS: Six studies compared Harris hip scores, two of which favored high hip center cup placement and three of which favored anatomic hip center cup placement, although none of the differences between cohorts met the minimum clinically important difference. Five studies reliably compared revision incidence, which ranged from 2% to 9% for high hip center at 7 to 15 years and 0% to 5.9% for anatomic hip center at 6 to 16 years. Five studies reported intra- and postoperative complications, with the high hip center being associated with higher incidence of dislocation and lower incidence of neurological complications. No clear difference was observed in intraoperative complications between the high hip center and anatomic hip center. CONCLUSION: No obvious differences could be observed in Harris hip score or revision incidence after THA for osteoarthritis secondary to DDH between cups placed at the anatomic hip center and those placed at the high hip center. Placement of the acetabular cup in the high hip center may lead to higher risk of dislocation but lower risk of neurologic complications, although no difference in intraoperative complications was observed. Surgeons should be able to achieve satisfactory functional scores and revision incidence using either technique, although they should be aware of how their choice influences hip biomechanics and the need for adjunct procedures and associated risks and operative time. These recommendations should be considered with respect to the several limitations in the studies reviewed, including the presence of serious confounding factors and selection biases, inconsistent definitions of the high hip center, variations in dysplasia severity, small sample sizes, and follow-up periods. These weaknesses should be addressed in well-designed future studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Hydrodilatation with corticosteroids is the most effective conservative management for frozen shoulder.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this overview is to summarise the findings of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials that compare conservative treatment options for frozen shoulder. METHODS: The authors conducted an electronic literature search for meta-analyses published using PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Two researchers independently applied selection criteria and assessed quality of meta-analyses using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Short-, medium- and long-term outcomes were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: A total of 319 studies were identified, of which 8 meta-analyses were eligible for inclusion. All included meta-analyses were judged to be low or critically low quality according to AMSTAR-2, however, their data synthesis and interpretation was considered valid. Physiotherapy, intra-articular and subacromial corticosteroid injection (CSI), and arthrographic distension/hydrodilatation with corticosteroid were reported with sufficient evidence. Intra-articular CSI and arthrographic distension/hydrodilatation with corticosteroid provide advantages over placebo in short-term pain relief, range of motion (ROM) and shoulder function, with improvements in ROM continuing into the medium and long term. Arthrographic distension/hydrodilatation with corticosteroid provides medium-term and long-term improvements in ROM over intra-articular CSI and physiotherapy. Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation provides advantages over conventional physiotherapy for pain improvement and external rotation in the short term. CONCLUSIONS: Arthrographic distension/hydrodilatation with corticosteroid provides superior pain relief in the short term and improvement in range of motion across all time frames for frozen shoulder when compared to CSI or physiotherapy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Clinical and surgical outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a systematic overview of meta-analyses.

Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA), in comparison to conventional THA, improves radiographic outcomes, but it remains unclear whether it alters complication rates, clinical and functional outcomes, and implant survival. The purpose of this systematic overview was to summarize the findings of the most recent meta-analyses that compare clinical and surgical outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional THA. Two readers independently conducted an electronic literature search, screening and data extraction from five electronic databases. Inclusion criteria were: meta-analyses evaluating robot-assisted versus conventional THA in terms of radiographic outcomes, clinical and functional scores, and complications and revision rates. The literature search returned 67 records, of which 14 were duplicates and 49 were excluded, leaving three meta-analyses published within the past two years for data extraction and analysis. The present overview of meta-analyses suggests that, compared to conventional THA (n = 3011), robot-assisted THA (n = 1813) improves component placement and reduces intraoperative complications. The overview also affirms that robot-assisted THA could extend surgery by 20 minutes, and increases risks of postoperative heterotopic ossification, dislocation, and revision. None of the meta-analyses found significant differences in clinical or functional scores between robot-assisted and conventional THA. Future studies and reviews should make a clear distinction between active and semi-active robotic assistance, address technology matureness, and describe the experience of surgeons with robotic assistance.

'Frozen shoulder' is ill-defined. How can it be described better?

Frozen shoulder, a common and debilitating shoulder complaint, has been the subject of uncertainty within the scientific literature and clinical practice.We performed an electronic PubMed search on all (1559) articles mentioning 'frozen shoulder' or 'adhesive capsulitis' to understand and qualify the range of naming, classification and natural history of the disease. We identified and reviewed six key thought leadership papers published in the past 10 years and all (24) systematic reviews published on frozen shoulder or adhesive capsulitis in the past five years.This revealed that, while key thought leaders such as the ISAKOS Upper Extremity Council are unequivocal that 'adhesive capsulitis' is an inappropriate term, the long-term and short-term trends showed the literature (63% of systematic reviews assessed) preferred 'adhesive capsulitis'.The literature was divided as to whether or not to classify the complaint as primary only (9 of 24) or primary and secondary (9 of 24); six did not touch on classification.Furthermore, despite a systematic review in 2016 showing no evidence to support a three-phase self-limiting progression of frozen shoulder, 11 of 12 (92%) systematic reviews that mentioned phasing described a three-phase progression. Eight (33%) described it as 'self-limiting', three (13%) described it as self-limiting in 'nearly all' or 'most' cases, and six (25%) stated that it was not self-limiting; seven (29%) did not touch on disease resolution.We call for a data and patient-oriented approach to the classification and description of the natural history of the disease, and recommend authors and clinicians (1) use the term 'frozen shoulder' over 'adhesive capsulitis', (2) use an updated definition of the disease which recognizes the often severe pain suffered, and (3) avoid the confusing and potentially harmful repetition of the natural history of the disease as a three-phase, self-limiting condition. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:273-279.DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190032.

Excellent survival and outcomes with fixed-bearing medial UKA in young patients (≤ 60 years) at minimum 10-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether long-term (10-year minimum) patient outcomes and survival of fixed-bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in patients aged ≤ 60 years were favorable despite non-conventional age criteria. METHODS: The authors reviewed the records of 91 consecutive medial UKAs performed in patients aged ≤ 60 by a single surgeon. All patients received the same fixed-bearing M/G Unicompartmental Knee System. Patients records were updated, noting complications or revisions, and Oxford Knee Scores and overall satisfaction collected. If deceased, the general practitioner or next of kin provided data. RESULTS: Of the initial 91 knees, 10 were revised, 6 were deceased, and 1 was lost to follow-up. The final cohort of 74 knees was aged 54.3 ± 4.3 years (range 41.8-60.6) at index surgery. Using revision of any component as endpoint, the present series had a KM survival of 92.9% (CI 84.8-96.7%) at 10 years, and 87.8% (CI 78.4-93.2%) at 15 years, and a single non-fatal DVT was reported. At final follow-up of 15 ± 1.3 years (range 11-18), OKS (available for all 74 knees) was 38.4 ± 8.4 (range 18-48). Overall patients were pleased or very pleased with 72 of the knees (97%). CONCLUSION: Fixed-bearing medial UKA yields favorable results in the treatment of single compartment osteoarthritis of the knee in patients ≤ 60 years. The present study demonstrates low complication rates, good-to-excellent long-term patient outcomes, and satisfactory implant survival for this age group considering the advantages of UKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

The Direct Anterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty for Severe Dysplasia (Crowe III and IV) Provides Satisfactory Medium to Long-Term Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The direct anterior approach (DAA) is increasingly used for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although the DAA can reduce pain, recovery time, and dislocations in nondysplastic hips, few studies report its results in patients with severe dysplasia. We aimed to evaluate outcomes of primary THA through the DAA with cup placement at the true acetabulum in hips with severe dysplasia. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 23 consecutive patients (29 hips) who underwent THA by DAA for osteoarthritis secondary to Crowe III-IV dysplasia. Surgical procedures were performed on a traction table, and the acetabular cup was placed in the true acetabulum. Patients were assessed clinically (complications, modified Harris Hip Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Oxford Hip Score) and radiographically (radiolucencies, subsidence, leg length discrepancies, cup inclination, and cup coverage) at a minimum of 2 years. RESULTS: One patient (2 hips) died with original implants (at 13 and 14 years), 3 patients (3 hips) were revised due to wear-induced loosening (at 14, 16, and 18 years), and there were no dislocations or infections. The remaining 19 patients (24 hips) were assessed at 8.4 ± 4.7 years (range 2-20); 2 patients (2 hips) had complications that required reoperation without implant removal. The modified Harris Hip Score improved from 32 ± 9 to 94 ± 7, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index from 46 ± 18 to 90 ± 7, and Oxford Hip Score was 56 ± 4. Patients were very satisfied (90%) or satisfied (10%). Limb length discrepancy was 2.5 ± 9.0 mm. CONCLUSION: THA through the DAA with cup placement at the true acetabulum provides satisfactory mid to long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes compared to other approaches for hips with severe dysplasia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective cohort study.