The use of knee mega-prosthesis for the management of distal femoral fractures: A systematic review

Introduction: Distal femur fractures (DFFs) are unusual and difficult to deal, especially in elderly patients. A consensus about a gold-standard treatment has not been reached yet. Available options include both conservative and surgical management. In elderly patients a prosthetic replacement could be a valid treatment option. Literature is lacking about the use of mega-prosthesis in this type of fractures. The purpose of the present systematic review is to examine which fracture, both acute and chronic, involving distal femur should be treated by using a mega-prosthesis. Materials and Methods: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases. All studies that enrolled people of any age affected by a DFFs treated by using a megaprosthesis were included. Primary outcomes of the present reviews were: ROM, functional assessment and complications. Two review authors independently selected eligible trials. Disagreements at any stage were resolved by consensus or a third party adjudication. Descriptive statics was used to summarize the data. Results: Thirteen article were finally included in the review. One hundred-four patients were treated with knee megaprosthesis. Three categories of patients were identified: 29 patients were affected by supracondylar femur fracture; 51 patients occurred with a periprosthetic fracture; 24 patients suffered a non-union of a previous supracondylar fracture. The follow-up varied between 6 months to 58 months. All studies showed good results in terms of improving quality of life, resuming activities of daily living (ADLs), early mobilization, ROM, shorter hospital stay. Although not frequent, the only reported complications were infection and aseptic loosening. Discussion: The present review showed that the use of knee megaprosthetic implants could represent a valid treatment option aiming to reduce patients’ immobilitazion and hospital stay. Good clinical outcomes with low rate of complications were reported by all included studies. Literature is lacking about long-term outcomes and complications. Moreover studies comparing knee prostheses and other types of surgical treatment (intramedullary nails, plate fixation system) are needed. Conclusions: Megaprosthesis represent a viable treatment option in patients affected by DFFs (either acute, periprostethic or non-union) because they allow immediate weight-bearing, shorter hospital stay, a fast recovery of knee function and ADLs

Thermal versus cooled radiofrequency in patients with sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review of the literature and pooled analysis of clinical outcomes

INTRODUCTION: Chronic low back pain (LBP) can be caused by sacroiliac joint (SIJ) disease. Many conditions could cause SIJ dysfunction. The lateral branches of the L4-S3 dorsal rami are responsible for the primary innervation of the posterior SI joint. Radiofrequency (RF) denervation represent an emerging promising treatment for refractory sacroiliac joint pain. There are different types of RF denervation such as thermal or cooled. Use of irrigation cooled electrodes allows targeted tissues to reach the neuroablative temperatures slowly, preventing collateral damage of adjacent tissue. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We conducted electronic database (PubMed, Medline, Cochrane and Google Scholar) research (time frame: January 1st, 2010 to May 31st, 2021) for clinical studies that had tested conventional radiofrequency (RFT) and cooled radiofrequency (RFC) to treat sacroiliac joint pain. These studies were evaluated according to Level of Evidence. Quantitative assessment of qualifying studies was done using the random effects model. We calculated the pooled size effect using standardized mean difference (SMD) as the main effect measure. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified nine studies, with a total of 276 patients affected by sacroiliac joint pain and treated with radiofrequency. The analysis revealed a small and non-significant difference in pain reduction and an improvement in quality of life in RFT subgroup (Pain measured in Visual Analogic Scale: RFT subgroups SMD=-3.643 (95% CI -4.478, -2.807), RFC subgroup SMD=-3.285 (95% CI -4.428, -2.141), P=0.587; Quality of Life measured in Oswestry Disability Index: RFT subgroup SMD=-35.969 (95% CI -53.993%, -17.945%), RFC subgroup SMD=-20.589% (95% CI -33.424%. -7.754%), P=0.123). Publication bias was found in quality-of-life assessment due to the low number and high heterogeneity of studies. Two techniques showed no major complications. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence indicates no statistical difference between two techniques examined. The literature is currently lacking, and well-constructed randomized clinical trials are necessary to evaluate this deficient aspect

The value of megaprostheses in non-oncological fractures in elderly patients: A short-term results

Introduction: The management of both hip and distal femur fractures as well as periprosthetic fractures can be challenging for orthopaedic surgeons. The use of megaprosthetic implants could provide substantial advantages in elderly population affected by complex fractures. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of megaprosthetic implants for treating hip and distal femur fractures as well as periprosthetic fractures in elderly. Material and Methods: From January 1st 2015 to December 31st 2019, patients treated for proximal or distal femoral fractures with severe bone loss or failure of previous surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two group based on diagnosis: proximal femur fractures (group A) and distal femur fractures (group B). Subsequently, patients underwent hip (group A) or knee (group B) megaprosthesis. Self-assessed questionnaires were administered to all patients pre and postoperatively. Primary outcome was the Activity Daily Living. Secondary outcomes were: Instrumental Activity Daily Living, Short Form-12, Oxford knee or hip score, complications. Charlson score, Harris classification for hip or Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute score and complication were recorded. All patients underwent a radiological follow up to rule out implant loosening and mobilization. Pre and postoperative functional score comparisons in each group were undertaken. Significance was set p ≤ 0.05. Results: Twelve patients were finally included in the study. There were 6 male and 6 females, the mean age was 72,9 years old (± 7,4); the mean BMI was 29,8 points (± 4.5). The mean follow-up was 2.9 years (± 1.4). No differences could be found between pre and postoperative evaluation in each group. No aseptic loosening, dislocation, mobilization or radiolucency were recorded during the follow-up. In group A, two surgical site infections (2/6 patients) and one pneumonia (1/6 patients) were recorded. In group B, two surgical site infections occurred (2/6 patients). All patients were treated by antimicrobial oral therapy with complete regression. Conclusion: The use of hip and knee megaprosthetic implants in traumatology is a safe and viable option in elderly patients

Minimally invasive surgery procedure in isthmic spondylolisthesis

Purpose: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the direct lateral approach to the lumbar spine in the treatment of painful isthmic spondylolisthesis in adults. Methods: Twenty-one patients affected by isthmic spondylolisthesis and treated with extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation were enrolled. All included patients were clinically evaluated with Oswestry Disability Index, SF36 and Visual Scale Anatomy (VAS) for back pain at 1, 3 months and at 1 year. Results: The mean correction of vertebral slippage measured on lateral lumbar X-ray was 56.3% (p = 0.002). The average preoperative VAS score was 7.1, at 1 year decreasing to 2.2 (p = 0.001). The patients had an average preoperative \u201cOswestry Disability Index\u201d of 36.8 and 24.1% after 1 year (p = 0.02). The preoperative Short-Form 36 Physical Health was equal to 33.8, 72.1% after 1 month, to 76.3% after 3 months and to 83.2% (p = 0.001) after 1 year of follow-up. There were no signs of implant loosening at 1-year CT scan examination in any of the patients. Conclusion: The study showed that the extreme lateral approach to the lumbar spine in case of isthmic spondylolisthesis is a reliable and safe option to the most common open procedures. In the authors\u2019 opinion, XLIF procedures allow a good correction of the listhesis associated with good clinical and radiographic results. Graphical abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic supplementary material.[Figure not available: see fulltext.]