PHILOS Synthesis for Proximal Humerus Fractures Has High Complications and Reintervention Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: The aim of this study was to quantify the rate of complications and reinterventions in patients treated with PHILOS plate for proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) synthesis. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed on the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to 7 October 2021. Studies describing medium and long-term complications in PHF synthesis using the PHILOS plate were included. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on complications and causes of reinterventions. Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence was performed with the Downs and Black’s “Checklist for Measuring Quality”. Results: Seventy-six studies including 4200 patients met the inclusion criteria. The complication rate was 23.8%, and the main cause was screw cut-out (4.1%), followed by avascular necrosis (AVN) (3.1%) and subacromial impingement (1.5%). In patients over 55 years, the complication rate was 29.5%. In the deltopectoral (DP) approach the complication rate was 23.8%, and in the delto-split (DS) it was 17.5%, but no difference between the two approaches was seen when considering the type of fracture. The overall reintervention rate was 10.5% in the overall population and 19.0% in older patients. Conclusions: Proximal humerus synthesis with a PHILOS plate has high complications and reintervention rates. The most frequent complication was screw cut-out, followed by humeral head AVN and subacromial impingement. These results need to be further investigated to better understand both the type of patient and fracture that is more at risk of complications and reintervention and to compare pros and cons of the PHILOS plate with respect to the other solutions to manage PHFs

Infection Risk Increases After Total Hip Arthroplasty Within 3 Months Following Intra-Articular Corticosteroid Injection. A Meta-Analysis on Knee and Hip Arthroplasty

Background: Much debate continues regarding the risk of postoperative infection after intra-articular corticosteroid injection prior to total joint arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or other complications after joint arthroplasty in patients who received preoperative corticosteroids injections.Methods: A literature search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library through January 4, 2022. Of 4,596 studies, 28 studies on 480,532 patients were selected for qualitative analysis. Studies describing patients receiving corticosteroids injections before joint arthroplasty (hip, knee) were included in the systematic review. A meta-analysis was performed of studies focusing on corticosteroids injections and PJI. Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence was based on the "Downs and Black's Checklist for Measuring Quality".Results: A significant association (odds ratio: 1.55, P = .001, 95% confidence interval: 1.357-1.772) between PJI and corticosteroids injections was found for total hip arthroplasty (THA). No association was found for knee arthroplasty procedures. The risk of PJI is statistically higher (odds ratio: 1.20, P = .045, 95% confidence interval: 1.058-1.347) if the injections are performed within 3 months preoperatively in THA patients.Conclusion: Patients undergoing THA who previously received intra-articular injections of corticosteroids may expect a statistically higher risk of developing PJI. On the contrary, no association between corticosteroids injections and PJI could be seen in total knee arthroplasty patients. In addition, injection timing plays an important role: surgeons should refrain from administering corticosteroids injections within 3 months before hip arthroplasty, as it appears to be less safe than waiting a 3-month interval. (c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Reply to Sidiropoulos, K.; Tsikopoulos, K. Comment on “Oldrini et al. PHILOS Synthesis for Proximal Humerus Fractures Has High Complications and Reintervention Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Life 2022, 12, 311”

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the commentary [...

Balance Remains Impaired after Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Best Evidence Synthesis

Background: Hip arthroplasty (HA) is the most common intervention for joint replacement, but there is no consensus in the literature on the real influence of this procedure on balance, or on what factors in the pre-operative, surgical, and post-operative stages may affect it. Purpose: To synthesize the evidence on how Hip Arthroplasty (HA) affects balance, identifying pre-operative, surgical, and postoperative risk factors that may impair balance in HA patients, with the aim to improve patients’ management strategies. Methods: A literature search was performed on PubMed, PeDRO, and Cochrane Collaboration on 25 May 2021. Inclusion criteria: clinical report of any level of evidence; written in English; with no time limitation; about balance changes in hip osteoarthritis (OA) patients undergoing HA and related factors. Results: 27 papers (391 patients) were included. Overall, the evidence suggested that balance is impaired immediately after surgery and, 4–12 months after surgery, it becomes better than preoperatively, although without reaching the level of healthy subjects. A strong level of evidence was found for hip resurfacing resulting in better balance restoration than total HA (THA), and for strength and ROM exercises after surgery positively influencing balance. Conclusion: Both the surgical technique and the post-operative protocols are key factors influencing balance; thus, they should be carefully evaluated when managing hip OA in patients undergoing HA. Moreover, balance at 4–12 months after surgery is better than preoperatively, although without reaching the level of the healthy population. Attention should be paid in the early post-operative phase, when balance may be impaired in patients undergoing HA

Biological intra‐articular augmentation for osteotomy in knee osteoarthritis: strategies and results

International audiencePurpose To assess whether there is evidence supporting the use of augmentation strategies, either cartilage surgical procedures or injective orthobiologic options, to improve the results of osteotomies in knees with osteoarthritis (OA). Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed on the PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane databases in January 2023 on osteotomies around the knee associated with augmentation strategies (either cartilage surgical procedures or injective orthobiologic options), reporting clinical, radiological, or second‐look/histological outcomes at any follow‐up. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the Coleman Methodology Score (CMS). Results Out of the 7650 records identified from the databases, 42 articles were included for a total of 3580 patients and 3609 knees treated; 33 articles focused on surgical treatments and 9 on injective treatments performed in association with knee osteotomy. Out of the 17 comparative studies with surgical augmentation, only 1 showed a significant clinical benefit of an augmentation procedure with a regenerative approach. Overall, other studies showed no differences with reparative techniques and even detrimental outcomes with microfractures. Regarding injective procedures, viscosupplementation showed no improvement, while the use of platelet‐rich plasma or cell‐based products derived from both bone marrow and adipose tissue showed overall positive tissue changes which translated into a clinical benefit. The mean modified CMS score was 60.0 ± 12.1. Conclusion There is no evidence to support the effectiveness of cartilage surgical treatments combined with osteotomies in terms of pain relief and functional recovery of patients affected by OA in misaligned joints. Orthobiologic injective treatments targeting the whole joint environment showed promising findings. However, overall the available literature presents a limited quality with only few heterogeneous studies investigating each treatment option. This ORBIT systematic analysis will help surgeons to choose their therapeutic strategy according to the available evidence, and to plan further and better studies to optimize biologic intra‐articular osteotomy augmentation. Level of evidence Level IV

Impact of tuberosity treatment in reverse shoulder arthroplasty after proximal humeral fractures: A multicentre study

Background: To assess how tuberosity treatment affects the short-term clinical outcome of patients with complex proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Methods: This is a multicentre study on 90 patients affected by acute PHFs (Neer type-4/11C3.2 in 80% of patients, and a Neer type 3/11B3.2 in 20%) treated with RSA and followed at an average of 34 months. Patients were divided into two groups (reconstructed and non-reconstructed tuberosity) according to the surgical fixation of the tuberosities. Then, the "reconstructed tuberosity" was divided into "healed" and "non-healed" groups. All patients were clinically evaluated in terms of ROM and strength in elevation, as well as with 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS), Constant and Murley Score (CMS), DASH Score, and EQ-VAS. X-rays in anteroposterior and Neer views were performed. Results: Based on the status of the tuberosities, 18.9% were non-reconstructed (17 patients) and 81.1% were reconstructed (73 patients): out of these, 11 were correctly healed, 42 healed with malposition, and 20 were reabsorbed. Instability was found in 2/73 patients in the reconstructed group, and in 4/17 patients in the non-reconstructed group. NRS (1.4 vs 0.5), DASH (23.1 vs 13.9), and EQ-VAS (78.1 vs 83.7) scores had better final values in the non-reconstructed group (p < 0.05). However, the non-correctly healed tuberosity group (excision + resorption + malposition/migration) showed worse strength, as well as clinical scores when compared to the correctly healed tuberosity group. Conclusion: RSA ensures satisfactory functional results for PHFs. Patients with a successfully reconstructed tuberosity have an overall better outcome. However, in this series most of the reconstructed cases presented tuberosity reabsorption, malposition, or migration, which led to lower results. Thus, tuberosity reconstruction must be carefully considered and tuberosity reabsorption or migration factors should be investigated, to optimize tuberosity reconstruction and provide to a higher number of patients a better outcome of RSA for the treatment of PHFs

Functional and Radiologic Outcomes of Degenerative Versus Traumatic Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears Involving the Supraspinatus Tendon.

BACKGROUND Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) is among the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures. Several factors-including age, sex, and tear severity-have been identified as predictors for outcome after repair. The influence of the tear etiology on functional and structural outcome remains controversial. PURPOSE To investigate the influence of tear etiology (degenerative vs traumatic) on functional and structural outcomes in patients with supraspinatus tendon tears. STUDY DESIGN Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS Patients undergoing ARCR from 19 centers were prospectively enrolled between June 2020 and November 2021. Full-thickness, nonmassive tears involving the supraspinatus tendon were included. Tears were classified as degenerative (chronic shoulder pain, no history of trauma) or traumatic (acute, traumatic onset, no previous shoulder pain). Range of motion, strength, the Subjective Shoulder Value, the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and the Constant-Murley Score (CMS) were assessed before (baseline) and 6 and 12 months after ARCR. The Subjective Shoulder Value and the OSS were also determined at the 24-month follow-up. Repair integrity after 12 months was documented, as well as additional surgeries up to the 24-month follow-up. Tear groups were compared using mixed models adjusted for potential confounding effects. RESULTS From a cohort of 973 consecutive patients, 421 patients (degenerative tear, n = 230; traumatic tear, n = 191) met the inclusion criteria. The traumatic tear group had lower mean baseline OSS and CMS scores but significantly greater score changes 12 months after ARCR (OSS, 18 [SD, 8]; CMS, 34 [SD,18] vs degenerative: OSS, 15 [SD, 8]; CMS, 22 [SD, 15]) (P < .001) and significantly higher 12-month overall scores (OSS, 44 [SD, 5]; CMS, 79 [SD, 9] vs degenerative: OSS, 42 [SD, 7]; CMS, 76 [SD, 12]) (P≤ .006). At the 24-month follow-up, neither the OSS (degenerative, 44 [SD, 6]; traumatic, 45 [SD, 6]; P = .346) nor the rates of repair failure (degenerative, 14 [6.1%]; traumatic 12 [6.3%]; P = .934) and additional surgeries (7 [3%]; 7 [3.7%]; P = .723) differed between groups. CONCLUSION Patients with degenerative and traumatic full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears who had ARCR show satisfactory short-term functional results. Although patients with traumatic tears have lower baseline functional scores, they rehabilitate over time and show comparable clinical results 1 year after ARCR. Similarly, degenerative and traumatic rotator cuff tears show comparable structural outcomes, which suggests that degenerated tendons retain healing potential