The Application of Interpositional (Bone-Tendon Interface) Scaffolds in Tendon Healing Augmentation for Rotator Cuff Repair.

PURPOSE: To investigate outcomes of inlay positioned scaffolds for rotator cuff healing and regeneration of native enthesis following augmentation of rotator cuff tendon repairs in preclinical studies. METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases according to PRISMA guidelines. Preclinical studies reporting on outcomes after inlay tendon augmentation in rotator cuff repair were included. Preclinical study quality was assessed using an adapted version of the Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) for animal studies. Level of evidence was defined based on the inclusion of (A) clinical, (B) biomechanical, (C) biochemical, (D) semiquantitive, and (E) qualitative histological analyses. RESULTS: Thirteen preclinical studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment and level of evidence scores ranged from 4-8 points and B-E, respectively. Sheep and ewes were the main animal rotator cuff tear models utilized (n=7). Demineralized bone matrix or demineralized cortical bone were the most commonly investigated scaffolds (n=6). The majority of the pre-clinical evidence (n=10) demonstrated qualitative or quantitative differences regarding histological, biomechanical, and biochemical outcomes in favor of interpositional scaffold augmentation of cuff repairs in comparison to controls. CONCLUSION: Inlay scaffold positioning in preclinical studies has been shown to enhance the healing biology of the enthesis while providing histological similarities to its native 4-zone configuration. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although onlay positioned grafts and scaffolds have demonstrated mixed results in preclinical and early clinical studies, inlay scaffolds may provide enhanced healing and structural support in comparison due to the ability to integrate with the bone-tendon interface.

Lower Range of Recurrent Instability Rates Following Bankart Repair and Remplissage Compared to Isolated Bankart Repair in Patients With "Nonengaging/On-Track" Hill-Sachs Lesions and <20% Glenoid Bone Loss.

PURPOSE: To compare recurrent instability and return-to-sport rates along with external rotation differences between on-track (nonengaging) Hill-Sachs lesion patients undergoing either an isolated Bankart repair (IBR) or a Bankart repair augmented with a remplissage procedure (B+R). METHODS: A search was conducted using 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only clinical comparative (level of evidence I-III) studies were considered for inclusion. Quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. RESULTS: Six level of evidence III studies, totaling 537 patients (202 B+R and 335 IBR) were included for analysis. All patients had <20% glenoid bone loss and a nonengaging, on-track Hill-Sachs lesion. At a median final follow-up of 34.7 months, recurrent dislocation rates ranged from 0% to 7.7% and 3.5% to 30% in the B+R and IBR groups, respectively. Moreover, subjective instability and revision surgery rates presented lower ranges in the B+R upon comparison with the IBR cohort (0%-32% vs 5%-71.4% and 0%-5% vs 0%-35%, respectively). Furthermore, return to preinjury level of sports ranged from 64% to 100% in the remplissage-augmented group and 50% to 90% in the IBR cohort. Postoperative external rotation at side varied from 50° to 63° in the B+R and 55° to 63° in the IBR arm. Additional subgroup analysis revealed recurrent dislocation rates in athletes and patients with near-track Hill-Sachs lesions undergoing remplissage augmentation to be 0% to 5% and 2% to 47% while ranging from 8.8% to 30% and 9% to 66% for IBR patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Upon qualitative analysis, ranges of recurrent instability measures, including recurrent dislocation rates, are higher in patients undergoing IBR in comparison to B+R. Activity level influences outcomes as athletes were found to have a higher range of recurrent dislocation rates in the IBR group. The addition of remplissage showed a higher range of return-to-sport rates with comparable postoperative external rotation between groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level III studies.

Arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage results in lower rates of recurrent instability with similar range of motion compared to isolated arthroscopic Bankart for anterior glenohumeral instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The addition of the remplissage procedure to an arthroscopic Bankart procedure has been shown to improve clinical outcomes, yet at the expense of potentially decreasing shoulder range of motion. The purpose of this study was to assess recurrent instability, range of motion, functional outcomes and rates of return to sport outcomes in patients undergoing an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair compared to those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair in addition to the remplissage procedure. METHODS: According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a search was conducted using three databases (MEDLINE/OVID, EMBASE and PubMed). Retrieved studies were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria for comparative studies. Data were extracted and meta-analysis performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies (13 level III studies, 2 level II studies and 1 level I) were included with a total of 507 and 704 patients in the Bankart plus remplissage and isolated Bankart repair groups, respectively. No studies reported glenoid bone loss of >20% with the least percentage of glenoid bone loss reported among studies being <1%. There was a significantly increased rate of recurrent dislocations (odds ratio [OR] = 4.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.380-7.48, p < 0.00001) and revision procedures (OR = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.52-7.41, p = 0.003) in the isolated Bankart repair group compared to the Bankart plus remplissage group. Additionally, there were no significant differences between groups in terms of external rotation at side (n.s.), in abduction (n.s.) or at forward flexion (n.s.) at final follow-up. Furthermore, return to preinjury level of sport favoured the Bankart plus remplissage group (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35-0.85, p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart plus remplissage for anterior shoulder instability have lower rates of recurrent instability, higher rates of return to sport, and no significant difference in range of motion at final follow-up when compared to an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair. Further large, prospective studies are needed to further determine which patients and degree of bone loss would benefit most from augmentation with the remplissage procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Antibiotic prophylaxis following low-velocity gunshot fractures: an updated review.

PURPOSE: Low-velocity gunshot fractures (LVGFs) are a common type of gunshot-induced trauma with the potential for complications such as infection and osteomyelitis. The effectiveness of antibiotic therapy in LVGFs remains uncertain, leading to ongoing debate about the appropriate treatment. In this review, we evaluate recent updates on the current understanding of antibiotic therapy in LVGFs, how previous studies have investigated the use of antibiotics in LVGFs, and the current state of institutional policies and protocols for treating LVGFs with antibiotics. METHODS: We conducted a review of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify studies that investigated the use of antibiotics in LVGFs after the last review in 2013. Due to the lack of quantitative clinical trial studies, we employed a narrative synthesis approach to analyze and present the findings from the included primary studies. We categorized the outcomes based on the anatomical location of the LVGFs. RESULTS: After evaluating 67 publications with the necessary qualifications out of 578 abstracts, 17 articles were included. The sample size of the studies ranged from 22 to 252 patients. The antibiotics used in the studies varied, and the follow-up period ranged from three months to ten years. The included studies investigated the use of antibiotics in treating LVGFs at various anatomic locations, including the humerus, forearm, hand and wrist, hip, femur, tibia, and foot and ankle. CONCLUSION: Our study provides updated evidence for the use of antibiotics in LVGFs and highlights the need for further research to establish evidence-based guidelines. We also highlight the lack of institutional policies for treating LVGFs and the heterogeneity in treatments among institutions with established protocols. A single-dose antibiotic approach could be cost-effective for patients with non-operatively treated LVGFs. We suggest that a national or international registry for gunshot injuries, antibiotics, and infections could serve as a valuable resource for collecting and analyzing data related to these important healthcare issues.

A Network Meta-Analysis on the Surgical Management of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: Anterior, Posterior, and Combined.

Background: Thoracolumbar burst fractures (BFs) are traumatic lesions instigated by compression forces. Canal compression and compromise may lead to neurological deficits. Optimal surgical management is yet to be fully defined since various approaches such as anterior, posterior, or combined exist. This study aims to determine the operative performance of these three treatment modalities. Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was performed, identifying studies comparing anterior, posterior, and/or combined surgical approaches in patients with thoracolumbar BFs. To analyze available evidence, a Bayesian network meta-analysis framework was utilized. Results: In this study, 16 studies were included. The shortest operative times and lowest operative blood losses were found for a posterior approach. The length of stay (LoS) was shorter with the posterior approach compared with the other two modalities. Return to work, postoperative kyphotic angle (PKA), and complications all favored the posterior approach. The visual analog scale score was similar between groups. Conclusions: This study suggests that the posterior approach has significant advantages in terms of operative time, blood loss, LoS, PKA, return to work, and complication rates when compared to the other approaches. Treatment should remain an individualized process, and before choosing an approach, factors such as patient characteristics, surgeon experience, and hospital settings should be considered.

Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Anterior and Posterior Approaches.

Background: A thoracolumbar burst fracture (BF) is a severe type of compression fracture, which is the most common type of traumatic spine fractures. Generally, surgery is the preferred treatment, but whether the optimal approach is either an anterior or a posterior approach remains unclear. This study aims to determine whether either method provides an advantage. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted, identifying studies comparing anterior versus posterior surgical approaches in patients with thoracolumbar BFs. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3. Seven studies were included. Results: An operative time of 87.97 min (53.91, 122.03; p<0.0001) and blood loss of 497.04 mL (281.8, 712.28; p<0.0001) were lower in the posterior approach. Length of hospital stay, complications, reintervention rate, neurological outcomes, postoperative kyphotic angle, and costs were similar between both groups. Conclusions: Surgical intervention is usually selected to rehabilitate patients with BFs. The data obtained from this study suggest that a posterior approach represents a viable alternative to an anterior approach, with various advantages such as a shorter operative time and decreased bleeding.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgery for Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Bones are the third most common location for solid tumor metastasis affecting up to 10% of patients with solid tumors. When the spine is involved, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are frequently affected. Access to spinal lesions can be through minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or traditional open surgery (OS). This study aims to determine which method provides an advantage. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Inventory for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted to identify studies that compare MIS with OS in patients with spinal metastatic disease. Data were analyzed using Review Manager ver. 5.3 (RevMan; Cochrane, London, UK). Ten studies were included. Operative time was similar among groups at -35.23 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], -73.36 to 2.91 minutes; p=0.07). Intraoperative bleeding was lower in MIS at -562.59 mL (95% CI, -776.97 to -348.20 mL; p<0.00001). OS procedures had higher odds of requiring blood transfusions at 0.26 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.45; p<0.00001). Both approaches instrumented similar numbers of levels at -0.05 levels (95% CI, -0.75 to 0.66 levels; p=0.89). We observed a decreased need for postoperative bed rest at -1.60 days (95% CI, -2.46 to -0.74 days; p=0.0003), a shorter length of stay at -3.08 days (95% CI, -4.50 to -1.66 days; p=0.001), and decreased odds of complications at 0.60 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.96; p=0.03) in the MIS group. Both approaches revealed similar reintervention rates at 0.65 (95% CI, 0.15 to 2.84; p=0.57), effective rates of reducing metastasis-related pain at -0.74 (95% CI, -2.41 to 0.94; p=0.39), and comparable scores of the Tokuhashi scale at -0.52 (95% CI, -2.08 to 1.05; p=0.41), Frankel scale at 1.00 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.68; p=1.0), and American Spinal Injury Association Scale at 0.53 (95% CI, 0.21 to 1.37; p=0.19). MIS appears to provide advantages over OS. Larger and prospective studies should fully detail the role of MIS as a treatment for spine metastasis.