scholarly journals Transosseous versus transmuscular repair of the posterior soft tissue in primary hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Changjiao Sun ◽  
Xiaofei Zhang ◽  
Qi Ma ◽  
Ruiyong Du ◽  
Xu Cai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dislocation Rate ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Vas Score ◽  
Transosseous Repair ◽  
Posterior Soft Tissue

Abstract Background During the posterior approach, it has been shown that a significant reduction in dislocation rate can be achieved with the repair of the posterior soft tissue. However, no consensus exists about the best way to perform this repair. This review aimed to compare the transosseous with transmuscular repair of the posterior soft tissue in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods We conducted a meta-analysis to identify studies involving transosseous versus transmuscular repair of the posterior soft tissue in THA in electronic databases, including Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Library, Highwire, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang database, up to July 2020. Finally, we identified 1417 patients (1481 hips) assessed in seven studies. Results Compared with transmuscular repair, transosseous repair resulted in less incidence of dislocation (P = 0.003), less blood loss during operation (P < 0.00001) and lower VAS score within 3 months (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in terms of trochanteric fracture rate (P = 0.56), Harris hip score at 3 months (P = 0.35) and 6 months (P = 0.89), VAS score within 6 months (P = 0.53), and operation time (P = 0.70) between two groups. Conclusion The lower dislocation rate, less blood loss, and lower VAS scores after operation supported transosseous repair's superiority to transmuscular repair. Besides, no additional medical cost and operating time were associated with transosseous repair compared with transmuscular repair. Hence, we recommend that transosseous repair be chosen first by orthopedists when performing reconstruction of the posterior soft tissue in THA via a posterolateral approach. Given the relevant possible biases in our meta-analysis, we required more adequately powered and better-designed RCT studies with long-term follow-up to reach a firmer conclusion.

scholarly journals Total Hip Arthroplasty After Failed Less Invasive Hip Preservation Surgery for Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
liang mo ◽  
Jianxiong Li ◽  
Zhangzheng Wang ◽  
Fayi Huang ◽  
Pengfei Xin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Head ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Total Hip

Abstract BackgroundLess invasive hip-preserving surgery (LIHP) is an effective treatment in delaying total hip arthroplasty (THA) for young patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). But the success rate of it was not as effective as expected and were significantly reduced with the advancement of the diseases stages. Therefore, it is essential to analysis the impact of LIHP on subsequent THA.MethodsThe search language was restricted to Chinese and English, and the references of included studies were also searched. Chinese databases including CNKI, Wan-Fang databases and VIP, and English databases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were searched by the computer from the inception of each database to 23rd May 2021. The outcome indicators were extracted from the included literature and analyzed by Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager software (RevMan version 5.4). The quality of the studies was scored using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS).ResultsA total of nine articles met the inclusion and were included in this meta-analysis, two of them were published in Chinese and the remaining studies were published in English. Results showed that the LIHP group has longer operative time (SMD=17.31, 95%CI=6.29 to 28.32, p=0.002), more intraoperative blood loss (SMD=79.90, 95%CI=13.92 to 145.87, p=0.02) and higher rate of varus or valgus femoral stem (OR=4.17, 95%CI=1.18 to 14.71, p=0.03) compared to primary THA group. The risk of intraoperative fracture was higher in the prior LIHP THA group compared with primary THA group but the difference was not statistically significant (OR=5.88, 95%CI=0.93 to 37.05, p=0.06). While there was no significant difference in cup anteversion angle (SMD=-0.10, 95%CI=-0.61 to 0.41, p=0.70), cup inclination angle (SMD=0.58, 95%CI=-0.05 to 1.22, p=0.07), postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) (SMD=-0.01, 95%CI=-0.43 to 0.46, p=0.96) and survivorship (OR=1.38, 95%CI=0.34 to 5.55, p=0.65) between THA groups with and without prior LIHP.ConclusionAlthough the prior LIHP increased the difficulty of the conversion to THA with longer operative time, more intraoperative blood loss, and higher rate of intraoperative fracture, it does not detrimentally affect the clinical results of subsequent THA in the mid-term following-up.

scholarly journals Full-Endoscopic Procedures Versus Traditional Discectomy Surgery for Discectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Current Global Clinical Trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 3;19 (3;3) ◽  
pp. 103-118
Author(s):  
Chun-Ming Huang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Pooled Data ◽  
Vas Score ◽  
Matching Criteria

Background: Traditional discectomy surgery (TDS) provides good or excellent results in clinical surgical discectomy but may induce neural adhesion, spinal structural damage, instability, and other complications. The potential advantages of full-endoscopic (FE) procedures over standard TDS include less blood loss, less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, and an earlier return to work. However, more evidence is needed to support this new technology in clinical applications. Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of FE and TDS. Study Design: Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, SinoMed, and Cochrane Library, were searched to identify clinical therapeutic trials comparing FE to TDS for discectomy. Results: Six trials comprising 730 patients were included, and the overall quality of the literature was moderate, including 4 Grade I levels of evidence (4 randomized controlled trials, [RCTs]) and 2 Grade II levels (2 non-RCTs). The pooled data revealed no difference in reoperation rates between FE and TDS (P = 0.94), but the complication rate was significantly lower in the FE group (3.86%) than in the TDS group (11.4%). Perioperative parameters (operation time, blood loss, hospitalization time, and return to work days) were significantly lower in the FE group (P < 0.05 for all groups using either score). Postoperative pain and neurology score assessments were conducted at 4 different time points at 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months. Significant differences were detected in the following: lumbar North American Spine Society (NASS) pain at 6 months (P = 0.008); cervical NASS neurology at 6 months (P = 0.03); visual analog scale (VAS) score in leg at 3 months (P < 0.001); VAS score in arm at 24 months (P = 0.002); VAS score in neck at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after therapy (P = 0.003, P = 0.004, P = 0.01); and VAS score in neck at 3 months and 6 months (P = 0.01, P = 0.004). Moreover, the pooled data revealed no statistically significant differences in improvements in the Oswestry disability index (ODI), instability (X-ray), and Hilibrand criteria (P > 0.05 for all groups). Limitations: Only 6 studies were included, 4 of which had the same authors. Between-study heterogeneity due to differences in socioeconomic factors, nutrition, and matching criteria is difficult to avoid. Conclusions: Based on this meta-analysis of 24 months of clinical results, we conclude that the FE procedure is as effective as TDS but has the additional benefits of lower complication rates and superior perioperative parameters. In addition, patients may experience less pain with FE techniques due to a smaller incision and less operative injury. However, large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-up are needed to confirm and update the findings of this analysis. Key words: Full-endoscopic, minimally invasive, discectomy, meta-analysis

scholarly journals Meta-analysis of unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoming Dong ◽  
Wei Li ◽  
Wenrui Qu ◽  
Meng Xu
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Binary Data ◽  
Postoperative Infection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Femoral Neck Fractures ◽  
Dislocation Rate ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty ◽  
Acetabular Erosion

Abstract Background Femoral neck fracture is a common fracture in the elderly. Improper treatment seriously impacts the patient and could potentially shorten their lifespan. Hemi-arthroplasty is a common treatment for femoral neck fractures, but the selection of unipolar prosthesis or bipolar prosthesis is still a controversial issue. Therefore, we conducted this comprehensive meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of unipolar and bipolar prostheses. Methods We searched the PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing unipolar hemiarthroplasty and bipolar hemiarthroplasty. The revised Jadad scale or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. After data extraction, continuous data were expressed as standardized mean differences and binary data were expressed as odds ratio. The postoperative infection, mortality, acetabular erosion rate, dislocation rate, and Harris hip score were compared and analyzed with Stata software. Results Nineteen studies that compared unipolar and bipolar replacement were included in the meta-analysis. We found no significant differences in the postoperative infection, mortality, dislocation rate, or Harris hip score between unipolar and bipolar replacement. The rate of acetabular erosion in the unipolar group was slightly higher than that in the bipolar group. Conclusions Existing studies have revealed that bipolar hemiarthroplasty is superior to unipolar hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures in terms of acetabular erosion.

scholarly journals Direct anterior versus posterolateral approaches for clinical outcomes after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wang Chen ◽  
Jian-Ning Sun ◽  
Ye Zhang ◽  
Yu Zhang ◽  
Xiang-Yang Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Direct Anterior Approach ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Cochrane Library

Abstract Objective The main objective of our study was to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of direct anterior approach (DAA) with posterolateral approaches (PLA). Methods We searched Cochrane library, Web of Science, and PubMed for literatures comparing DAA with PLA. On the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria, relevant literatures were selected. Two members independently screened qualified literatures, evaluated the literature quality, and extracted data information. Results Eighteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs totaling 34,873 patients (DAA = 9636, PLA = 25237) were contained in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The results showed that DAA were reduced in terms of length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD) = −0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.78 to −0.09, P = 0.01), LLD (WMD = −2.00, 95% CI −2.75 to −1.25, P < 0.00001), PE/DVT (WMD = 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.85, P = 0.02), dislocation (WMD = 0.42, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.59, P < 0.00001) and visual analog scale (VAS) (WMD = −0.57, 95% CI −0.91 to −0.23, P = 0.0009) compared with PLA; however, DAA compared with the PLA was increasing in terms of operative time (WMD = 14.81, 95% CI 7.18 to 22.44, P = 0.0001), intraoperative blood loss (WMD = 105.13, 95% CI 25.35 to 184.90, P = 0.01), fracture (WMD = 1.46, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.11, P = 0.05), and Harris hip score (HHS) (WMD = 1.19, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.61, P < 0.00001). Conclusions DAA was preferable effectiveness to PLA in early pain relief and functional recovery; however, PLA has a shorter operation time, intraoperative less blood loss and fracture. Trial registration Registration ID, CRD42020151208

scholarly journals Open Reduction with Internal Fixation (ORIF) versus Hybrid Circular External Fixator (HCEF) as the Treatment of Choice for Bicondylar Tibial Plateau Fractures : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (5_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967120S0004
Author(s):  
I Made Arya Susila ◽  
Sherly Desnita Savio ◽  
Cokorda Gde Oka Dharmayuda
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Open Reduction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Similar Operation

Bicondylar Tibial Plateu Fractures (BTPF) present a challenge in management due to the involvement of articular surface, resulting in high complication rate. This study aims to compare two treatments, Open Reduction with Internal Fixation (ORIF) and Hybrid Circular External Fixation (HCEF) as the choice of surgical procedure for BTPF that still controversial until now. Discussion: BTPF is a complex and challenging injury associated with severe bone and soft tissue damage which may result in severe morbidity and chronic complications. The minimally invasive procedure offered by HCEF preserves soft tissue and offers lower rate of deep infection. Furthermore, HCEF should be more considered as the treatment of choice for BTPF due to its shorter hospital LoS which may minimalize nosocomial infection risks and costs. Materials and Methods: A systematic review using Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Google Scholar was conducted based on PRISMA guideline. Inclusion criteria were studies comparing HCEF and ORIF of BTPF. Studies of only one surgical technique modality, Schatzker types I-IV Tibial Plateu Fractures, and case reports were excluded, resulting in six included studies. For the meta-analysis of hospital length of stay (LoS), random effect model was used for continuous outcomes using Review Manager 5.3. Results: Most common complications are nerve injuries, infection, and non/delayed union. Blood loss was higher in ORIF group, while both procedures have similar operation time and functional outcome. The mean hospital LoS for ORIF (n = 60) was 18.45, as for HCEF (n =63) was 8.325. There was significant difference in terms of hospital LoS between ORIF and HCEF (P =0.003). Conclusion: ORIF and HCEF carry similar operation time, functional outcome, union rate, and complication, though HCEF is more beneficial in terms of blood loss and hospital LoS.

scholarly journals Mid-term results of bilateral synchronous total hip arthroplasty for bony ankylosis in patients with ankylosing spondylitis

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Han ◽  
Renfu Quan ◽  
Zhenle Pei ◽  
Guoping Cao ◽  
Yungen Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Heterotopic Bone ◽  
Heterotopic Bone Formation ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Vas Score ◽  
Mid Term Results ◽  
Bony Ankylosis

Abstract Background Total hip arthroplasty (THA) for bony ankylosis is technically challenging in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). This study aimed to determine the mid-term results of bilateral synchronous THA for bony ankylosis in patients with AS. Methods Nineteen cases of bony ankylosis in patients with AS who received bilateral synchronous THA were included in this study (17 males and 2 females, mean age 49.2 years). Disease duration was 5–38 years (mean 18 years and 6 months). All patients received cementless THA. Intraoperative blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and complications were assessed. Harris hip scores evaluated the clinical effect. Results Patients were followed up for 62–98 months (mean 82.5 months). VAS score decreased from 7.42 ± 0.92 to 2.42 ± 0.83, Harris hip score improved from 21.8 ± 7.2 to 80.3 ± 6.5, and the flexion-extension range of the hip improved from 0 to 142.3 ± 6.2°. One patient with septum bronchiale had a fracture intraoperatively and was treated with wire strapping. One patient had a traction injury of the femoral nerve postoperatively and recovered 1 year after the operation. Loosening and subsidence were not observed in all patients. Heterotopic bone formation was noted in 3 patients. No complications such as joint dislocation, acute infection, and deep vein thrombosis were found. Conclusion Bilateral synchronous THA was effective for bony ankylosis of the hip in patients with AS because it improved patients’ quality of life and had satisfactory mid-term outcomes.

scholarly journals Dynamics of hip joint effusion after posterior soft tissue repair in total hip arthroplasty

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 233-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarunas Tarasevicius ◽  
Uldis Kesteris ◽  
Romas Jonas Kalesinskas ◽  
Hans Wingstrand
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Joint ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Tissue Repair ◽  
Joint Effusion ◽  
Soft Tissue Repair ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Posterior Soft Tissue

scholarly journals The Efficacy and Safety of Fibrin Sealant Versus Tranexamic Acid Administration in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fan Yong Yong ◽  
deng bo ◽  
Hong Hai Nan ◽  
Zhu Zhong
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Tranexamic Acid ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Fibrin Sealant ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Transfusion Rate ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract PurposeThe efficacy and safety of topical fibrin sealant (FS) compared with tranexamic acid (TXA) to reduce blood loss after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is not clear. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical FS versus topical or intravenous TXA for treatment of primary THA.MethodWe searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies up to March 2020. The references included in articles were also checked for additional potentially-relevant studies. The language of publication was limited to English. The endpoints included the mean difference (MD) of blood loss, hemoglobin value, and odds ratios (ORs) of transfusion requirements and thrombotic events. Our meta-analysis was performed according to the Guidelines of the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook and the PRISMA statement. The data of the included studies were analyzed using RevMan 5.3.ResultsA total of four studies (two randomized controlled trials and two non-randomized controlled trials) met the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that TXA administration led to significantly different outcomes in terms of transfusion rate (RD = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.23, -0.00), P = 0.05, I2 = 74%) and postoperative hemoglobin levels (WMD = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.74, -021), P = 0.0005, I2 = 3%) compared with topical application of FS in patients undergoing THA. No significant difference was seen in total calculated blood loss (WMD = -86.22, 95% CI (-99.13, -73.31), P < 0.00001, I2 = 96%) or complication rate (RR = 0.98, 95% CI (-99.13, -73.31), P = 0.45, I2 = 0%) between the two groups.ConclusionsTXA administration can effectively decrease the transfusion rate and result in higher postoperative hemoglobin levels without increasing the rate of infection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document