Knee arthroscopy and exercise versus exercise only for chronic patellofemoral pain syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Arthroscopy is often used to treat patients with chronic patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS). As there is a lack of evidence, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to study the efficacy of arthroscopy in patients with chronic PFPS.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 56 patients with chronic PFPS were randomized into two treatment groups: an <it>arthroscopy group </it>(<it>N </it>= 28), treated with knee arthroscopy and an 8-week home exercise program, and a <it>control group </it>(<it>N </it>= 28), treated with the 8-week home exercise program only. The arthroscopy included finding-specific surgical procedures according to current recommendations. The primary outcome was the Kujala score on patellofemoral pain and function at 9 months following randomization. Secondary outcomes were visual analog scales (VASs) to assess activity-related symptoms. We also estimated the direct healthcare costs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both groups showed marked improvement during the follow-up. The mean improvement in the Kujala score was 12.9 (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.2–17.6) in the arthroscopy group and 11.4 (95% CI 6.9–15.8) in the control group. However, there was no difference between the groups in mean improvement in the Kujala score (group difference 1.1 (95% CI -7.4 - 5.2)) or in any of the VAS scores. Total direct healthcare costs in the arthroscopy group were estimated to exceed on average those of the control group by €901 per patient (<it>p </it>< 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this controlled trial involving patients with chronic PFPS, the outcome when arthroscopy was used in addition to a home exercise program was no better than when the home exercise program was used alone.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 41800323</p

Comparação entre parafuso de interferência e transcondilar na reconstrução do LCA

OBJETIVO: A fixação femoral na reconstrução do Ligamento Cruzado Anterior (LCA) com enxerto de tendões flexores pode variar muito de acordo com a disposição dos materiais e a experiência do cirurgião. Porém os trabalhos que comparam os sistemas de fixação são efetuados na maioria das vezes em cadáveres ou em animais, sem avaliar os resultados clínicos, prejudicando sua comparação com pacientes humanos vivos. Neste artigo avaliamos o resultado clínico de dois métodos de fixação do enxerto ao fêmur (parafuso de interferência de titânio e parafuso transcondilar de titânio) para saber se, do ponto de vista clinico e subjetivo, há diferença entre estes métodos. MÉTODOS: Foram selecionados 40 pacientes com lesão do LCA sendo que 20 pacientes tiveram seu enxerto fixado ao fêmur com parafuso de interferência e 20 com parafuso transcondilar. Todos foram reavaliados com no mínimo dois anos de pós operatório para medição da gaveta anterior, Pivot Shift e teste de Lachman, além da obtenção dos questionário de Lysholm e IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee). RESULTADOS: Os resultados não foram estatisticamente diferentes para os critérios avaliados. CONCLUSÃO: As duas formas de fixação são eficientes para esta técnica dentro dos parâmetros estabelecidos. Nível de Evidência II, Estudo Prospectivo Comparativo.OBJECTIVE: Femoral fixation in ACL reconstruction with flexor tendon grafts can vary greatly according to the provision of materials and the surgeon's experience. But studies comparing fixation systems are most often performed on cadavers or animals, without evaluating the clinical results, which affects their comparison with live human patients. This article evaluates the clinical and subjective outcomes of two methods of graft fixation to the femur (Titanium interference screw and titanium transcondilar device) to determine whether there is any difference between these methods. METHODS: Forty patients with ACL injury were selected. Of these, 20 had their graft fixed to the femur with interference screw and 20 with the transcondylar device. All the patients were reevaluated at least two years postoperatively by the anterior drawer test, pivot shift test and Lachman test, as well as obtaining the Lysholm and IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) scores. Results: The results were not statistically different for the criteria evaluated, which leads to the conclusion that. CONCLUSION: Both forms of fixation are effective for this technique, within the parameters established. Level of Evidence II, Prospective Comparative study

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions.

BACKGROUND: Assistive products are items which allow older people and people with disabilities to be able to live a healthy, productive and dignified life. It has been estimated that approximately 1.5% of the world's population need a prosthesis or orthosis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to systematically identify and review the evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions. METHODS: Literature searches, completed in September 2015, were carried out in fourteen databases between years 1995 and 2015. The search results were independently screened by two reviewers. For the purpose of this manuscript, only randomized controlled trials which examined interventions using orthotic or prosthetic devices were selected for data extraction and synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 342 randomised controlled trials were identified (319 English language and 23 non-English language). Only 4 of these randomised controlled trials examined prosthetic interventions and the rest examined orthotic interventions. These orthotic interventions were categorised based on the medical conditions/injuries of the participants. From these studies, this review focused on the medical condition/injuries with the highest number of randomised controlled trials (osteoarthritis, fracture, stroke, carpal tunnel syndrome, plantar fasciitis, anterior cruciate ligament, diabetic foot, rheumatoid and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankle sprain, cerebral palsy, lateral epicondylitis and low back pain). The included articles were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Details of the clinical population examined, the type of orthotic/prosthetic intervention, the comparator/s and the outcome measures were extracted. Effect sizes and odds ratios were calculated for all outcome measures, where possible. CONCLUSIONS: At present, for prosthetic and orthotic interventions, the scientific literature does not provide sufficient high quality research to allow strong conclusions on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness