Are Oxinium Femoral Heads Superior to Alternative Bearing Surface Materials? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (03) ◽  
pp. 142-148
Author(s):  
Anthony H. Zou ◽  
James E. Feng ◽  
David Novikov ◽  
Casey M. O'Connor ◽  
Afshin A. Anoushiravani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Linear Wear ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Wear Rates ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Femoral Heads ◽  
Bearing Materials ◽  
Alternative Bearing

AbstractOxidized zirconium (OxZr) femoral heads were developed to emulate the superior wear and scratch properties of ceramics while eliminating their unwanted tendency for brittle fracturing. Studies using OxZr have demonstrated reduced linear and volumetric wear of polyethylene (PE) liners when compared with cobalt chrome, ceramic, and steel femoral heads. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the difference in revision rates, radiologically determined linear wear rates, and patient-reported outcomes among OxZr and alternative bearing materials. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis protocols, a systematic review of published literature through April 24, 2018 was conducted. Among the 862 cases included at a mean weighted follow-up of 4.78 years, the revision THA rate and patient-reported outcomes were similar among OxZr and alternative bearing materials. One of the five studies demonstrated significantly lower linear wear rates in the OxZr group when paired with ultrahigh molecular-weight PE (OxZr 0.03 mm/y vs. stainless-steel 0.11 mm/y; p < 0.001) and when paired with highly-crosslinked PE (OxZr 0.02 mm/y vs. stainless-steel 0.04 mm/y; p < 0.001). The remaining four studies found no difference in linear wear rates. OxZr demonstrated similar outcome to that of modern-day ceramic and metal femoral heads for short- and mid-term revision surgery rates and patient-reported outcomes. Longer term studies are needed to evaluate if any long-term wear advantages are seen with the use of OxZr femoral heads and if the use of OxZr is cost effective compared with ceramic or metal alternatives. The level of evidence of the study is level II, systematic review.

scholarly journals Articular Cartilage Defects of the Glenohumeral Joint: A Systematic Review of Treatment Options and Outcomes

Cartilage ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 194760351987085 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Fiegen ◽  
Devin P. Leland ◽  
Christopher D. Bernard ◽  
Aaron J. Krych ◽  
Jonathan D. Barlow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Glenohumeral Joint ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Cartilage Defects ◽  
Imaging Findings ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Patient Reported

Objective To report radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging findings, patient-reported outcomes, and complications and/or reoperations following nonarthroplasty surgical intervention for focal glenohumeral cartilage defects. Design A literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Patients were included if they possessed a chondral defect of the humeral head, glenoid, or both, which had been treated with a joint preserving nonarthroplasty procedure. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scoring system. Study demographics, surgical technique, imaging findings, patient-reported outcomes, complications, failures, and reoperations were collected. Results Fourteen studies with 98 patients (100 shoulders) met the inclusion criteria. Patient ages ranged from 7 to 74 years. The nonarthroplasty surgical techniques utilized included microfracture (67 shoulders), osteochondral transplantation (28 shoulders), chondrocyte transplantation (4 shoulders), and internal fixation (1 shoulder). The rates of radiographic union and progression of osteoarthritis ranged between 90% to 100% and 57% to 100%, respectively. Visual analog scores ranged from 0 to 1.9 at final follow-up. Mean postoperative ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons) shoulder scores ranged from 75.8-100. Mean postoperative CSS (Constant Shoulder Score) scores ranged from 83.3-94. Mean postoperative SSV (Subjective Shoulder Value) ranged from 70% to 99%. Failure and reoperation rates ranged between 0% to 35% and 0% to 30%, respectively, with the most common reoperation being conversion to prosthetic arthroplasty. Conclusions In this systematic review, nonarthroplasty surgical techniques demonstrated acceptable rates of radiographic healing, improved patient reported outcomes, minimal complications, and low rates of failure or reoperation. Joint preserving techniques are likely viable options to prolong function of the native shoulder and provide short- to midterm pain relief in young and highly active patients. Level of Evidence Level IV.

Meniscus repair failure risk does not differ by sex: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-102
Author(s):  
Christopher Hamilton ◽  
David C Flanigan ◽  
Kishan H Patel ◽  
Nathaniel Lundy ◽  
Ryan Blackwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Meniscus Repair ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Female Patients ◽  
Failure Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Meta Analyses

ImportanceMeniscus tears are common knee pathologies that are frequently treated with meniscus repair with a variety of techniques. Regardless of technique and implant choice, it is critical to understand and consider patient factors, including patient sex, which can influence outcome.ObjectiveWe sought to determine if there is an effect of sex on failure risk following meniscus repair.Evidence reviewA systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify studies that reported failure risk independently for male and female patients. Meta-analyses were performed to identify the effect of patient sex on meniscus repair failure risk. Differences in patient-reported outcomes by sex were reported qualitatively.FindingsA total of 886 patients analysed were included in the 11 identified studies, including 556 males and 330 females. Meniscus repair failure was reported in 192 patients (21.7%). The failure risk was 21.1% in males and 21.5% in females. Meta-analyses demonstrated no significant difference in meniscus repair failure risk based on sex in neither the three studies that assessed repair success arthroscopically (p=0.66) nor the eight studies in which failure was defined with clinical assessment or as the need for repeat surgery (p=0.92).Conclusions and relevanceThere are no significant differences in meniscus repair failure risk in male versus female patients in the existing literature. More published data are needed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes of meniscus repair based on sex.Level of evidenceIV, systematic review.

The popularity of outcome measures used in shoulder arthroplasty literature

2020 ◽  
pp. 175857322093586
Author(s):  
Fady Y Hijji ◽  
Thomas G Cheslik ◽  
Andrew D Schneider ◽  
Blake M Schach ◽  
Indresh Venkatarayappa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Specific Measure ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Disease Specific

Introduction Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently utilized within orthopaedics to determine the extent of patient disease and the efficacy of surgical treatments. Shoulder arthroplasty is a common treatment option for a range of pathologies; however, substantial variety exists regarding the instruments used within the published literature, limiting their quality and generalizability. The purpose of the present systematic review is to evaluate the overall number and frequency of outcome measures used in all clinical studies evaluating outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty. Methods This systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies that assessed patient reported outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty, reverse shoulder arthroplasty, and shoulder hemiarthroplasty were obtained from PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. For each manuscript, the journal, authors, region of origin, level of evidence, and subject/pathology were recorded. The frequency of each reported outcome measure and category. Associations between study characteristics and measure categories were tested using Poisson regression with robust error variance. Results A total of 682 articles were included in the analysis, reporting 42 different PROs. The most popular tools were the Constant-Murley score (49.7%), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Evaluation Form (37.7%), and the Visual Analog Scale (34.3%). A generic outcome tool was used in 287 studies (42.1%), while 645 (94.6%) utilized a shoulder-specific measure and 49 (7.2%) used a disease-specific measure. The use of generic (p<0.001) and disease specific (p<0.001) measures were associated with higher level of evidence. Conclusion Studies assessing patient outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty employ a large range of PRO measuring tools, many of which are non-validated. Furthermore, only a small percentage of studies utilize a combination of tools from different categories despite current recommendations. Consensus on validated and clinically-meaningful tools from multiple categories is necessary to increase the generalizability and applicability of published studies in shoulder arthroplasty literature. Level of Evidence 1

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Outcomes at a Minimum of 5-Year Follow-Up: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (03) ◽  
pp. 218-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lea Johnson ◽  
Robert Brophy ◽  
Ljiljana Bogunovic ◽  
Matthew Matava ◽  
Matthew Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Revision Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

AbstractRevision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction typically has worse outcomes than primary reconstructions. Minimal long-term data exist regarding 5-year results. We chose to perform a systematic review to evaluate midterm (5-year) revision ACL reconstruction outcomes (patient-reported outcomes, reoperation, stability, arthritis) in comparison to primary ACL reconstructions at similar time points. Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed databases were queried, and four studies met the inclusion criteria. Two authors reviewed and performed data extraction. All were level 4 studies. Review of the studies demonstrated that results at 5 years are consistently worse than those noted in primary reconstructions for objective and patient-reported outcomes. Revision ACL reconstruction outcomes remain worse than primary reconstructions at midterm 5-year follow-up. The level of evidence is 4.

Enhanced Recovery Experience After Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes

2019 ◽  
pp. 108-112
Author(s):  
Muath Alturkistani ◽  
Ali Alahmari ◽  
Hussam Alhumaidi ◽  
Mohammed Alharbi ◽  
Alhanouf Alqernas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Orthopaedic Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Patient Reported

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in spine surgery: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brittany E. Haws ◽  
Benjamin Khechen ◽  
Mundeep S. Bawa ◽  
Dil V. Patel ◽  
Harmeet S. Bawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Information System ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Neck Disability Index ◽  
Measurement Information ◽  
Strong Correlations ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Outcomes Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Measurement Information System

OBJECTIVEThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed to provide a standardized measure of clinical outcomes that is valid and reliable across a variety of patient populations. PROMIS has exhibited strong correlations with many legacy patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. However, it is unclear to what extent PROMIS has been used within the spine literature. In this context, the purpose of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the PROMIS literature for spine-specific populations that can be used to inform clinicians and guide future work. Specifically, the authors aimed to 1) evaluate publication trends of PROMIS in the spine literature, 2) assess how studies have used PROMIS, and 3) determine the correlations of PROMIS domains with legacy PROs as reported for spine populations.METHODSStudies reporting PROMIS scores among spine populations were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE and a review of reference lists from obtained studies. Articles were excluded if they did not report original results, or if the study population was not evaluated or treated for spine-related complaints. Characteristics of each study and journal in which it was published were recorded. Correlation of PROMIS to legacy PROs was reported with 0.1 ≤ |r| < 0.3, 0.3 ≤ |r| < 0.5, and |r| ≥ 0.5 indicating weak, moderate, and strong correlations, respectively.RESULTSTwenty-one articles were included in this analysis. Twelve studies assessed the validity of PROMIS whereas 9 used PROMIS as an outcome measure. The first study discussing PROMIS in patients with spine disorders was published in 2012, whereas the majority were published in 2017. The most common PROMIS domain used was Pain Interference. Assessments of PROMIS validity were most frequently performed with the Neck Disability Index. PROMIS domains demonstrated moderate to strong correlations with the legacy PROs that were evaluated. Studies assessing the validity of PROMIS exhibited substantial variability in PROMIS domains and legacy PROs used for comparisons.CONCLUSIONSThere has been a recent increase in the use of PROMIS within the spine literature. However, only a minority of studies have incorporated PROMIS for its intended use as an outcomes measure. Overall, PROMIS has exhibited moderate to strong correlations with a majority of legacy PROs used in the spine literature. These results suggest that PROMIS can be effective in the assessment and tracking of PROs among spine populations.

scholarly journals Sex differences in outcomes after arthroscopic bankart repair

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000965
Author(s):  
Natalie A Lowenstein ◽  
Peter J Ostergaard ◽  
Daniel B Haber ◽  
Kirsten D Garvey ◽  
Elizabeth G Matzkin
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Sex Differences ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Strength Function ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Males And Females

ObjectivesRisk factors for anterior shoulder dislocation include young age, contact activities and male sex. The influence of sex on patient-reported outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) is unclear, with few studies reporting potential differences. This study’s purpose was to compare patient-reported outcomes of males and females following ABR.MethodsProspectively collected data was analysed for 281 patients (males: 206, females: 75) after ABR with preoperative, 1-year and 2-year follow-up responses. The Wilcoxon signed-rank and χ2 tests, preoperative, 1 year and 2 year follow-up results were examined to determine differences of scores in males versus females.ResultsNo statistically significant sex differences were observed in Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) or Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) Scores at 1-year or 2-year follow-up. Females had lower Veterans RAND 12-item health survey (VR-12) mental health subscores at 2-year follow-up (females: 52.3±9.0, males: 55.8±7.6, p=0.0016). Females were more likely to report that treatment had ‘exceeded expectations’ at 2-year follow-up regarding motion, strength, function and normal sports activities.ConclusionResults of study demonstrate that ABR has similar outcomes for both males and females. There were no statistically significant sex-related differences in SST, ASES, VAS or SANE scores following ABR. VR-12 mental health subscores showed a minimal difference at 2-year follow-up, with lower scores in females.Level of evidenceRetrospective cohort study; level II.

scholarly journals Correction to: Robotic‑arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved accuracy and patient reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta‑analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junren Zhang ◽  
Wofhatwa Solomon Ndou ◽  
Nathan Ng ◽  
Paul Gaston ◽  
Philip M. Simpson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Robotic Arm ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Total Knee ◽  
Improved Accuracy

A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06522-x

scholarly journals AB0116 THE EFFECTS OF DISEASE MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS ON PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES; PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1087.1-1087
Author(s):  
M. Van den Dikkenberg, Msc ◽  
N. Luurssen-Masurel ◽  
M. Kuijper ◽  
M. R. Kok ◽  
P. De Jong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Activity Limitations ◽  
Definitive Answer ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Standard Set ◽  
Disease Modifying

Background:The need to involve patient reported outcomes (PROs) in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increases, since PROs quantify patient relevant outcomes. Although PROs have been incorporated in the core-outcome sets in clinical trials, knowledge about the treatment effects on these PROs is scarce. Therefore, we performed a systematic review on the effects of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), of any type, on relevant PRO domains mentioned in the ICHOM standard set. This might support rheumatologists and RA patients during treatment decisions.Objectives:To get insight in the treatment effects of DMARDs of any type on three PRO domains that matter to patients (pain, activity limitations and fatigue).Methods:A systematic review was performed in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar. Included were all studies that were published before August 2019 and showed DMARD treatment effects in RA on PROs that are part of the ICHOM standard set. Three Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed for the PRO domains pain, activity limitations and fatigue. Preliminary results of DMARDs (in)directly compared to placebo were visualized by forest plots using R.Results:The search strategy yielded n=5974 articles. After selection was performed by 2 independent researchers, n=70 individual articles representing n=53 studies were extracted, over the three PRO domains; pain (n=31), activity limitations (n=41) and fatigue (n=21). In all RCTs, PROs were only reported as secondary or tertiary endpoints. In figure 1, we show the effects on PROs for any type of DMARD investigated compared to placebo. Overall, DMARDs show a greater reduction in pain (standardized mean difference (SMD); -0.97 – -0.22) and most of them in activity limitations (SMD; -0.81 – 0.56). In fatigue, this clear direction is lacking (SMD; -0.86 – 3.5). csDMARDs and anti-TNF seem to perform slightly, but nog significantly, worse than other bDMARDs and tsDMARDs in the first two domains.Conclusion:Within in this systematic review we report a reduction for DMARDs of any type on the domains of pain and activity limitations compared to placebo. However, results are still preliminary and should be interpreted with care. A more comprehensive network analysis might give a more definitive answer which DMARD performs best.Figure 1.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document