High Rates of Return to Sports Activities and Work After Osteotomies Around the Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

© 2017, The Author(s). Background: Knee osteotomies are proven treatment options, especially in younger patients with unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis, for certain cases of chronic knee instability, or as concomitant treatment for meniscal repair or transplantation surgery. Presumably, these patients wish to stay active. Data on whether these patients return to sport (RTS) activities and return to work (RTW) are scarce. Objectives: Our aim was to systematically review (1) the extent to which patients can RTS and RTW after knee osteotomy and (2) the time to RTS and RTW. Methods: We systematically searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases. Two authors screened and extracted data, including patient demographics, surgical technique, pre- and postoperative sports and work activities, and confounding factors. Two authors assessed methodological quality. Data on pre- and postoperative participation in sports and work were pooled. Results: We included 26 studies, involving 1321 patients (69% male). Mean age varied between 27 and 62 years, and mean follow-up was 4.8 years. The overall risk of bias was low in seven studies, moderate in ten studies, and high in nine studies. RTS was reported in 18 studies and mean RTS was 85%. Reported RTS in studies with a low risk of bias was 82%. No studies reported time to RTS. RTW was reported in 14 studies; mean RTW was 85%. Reported RTW in studies with a low risk of bias was 80%. Time to RTW varied from 10 to 22 weeks. Lastly, only 15 studies adjusted for confounders. Conclusion: Eight out of ten patients returned to sport and work after knee osteotomy. No data were available on time to RTS. A trend toward performing lower-impact sports was observed. Time to RTW varied from 10 to 22 weeks, and almost all patients returned to the same or a higher workload

The Need for a Prophylactic Gastrojejunostomy for Unresectable Periampullary Cancer: A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Trial With Special Focus on Assessment of Quality of Life

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a prophylactic gastrojejunostomy on the development of gastric outlet obstruction and quality of life in patients with unresectable periampullary cancer found during explorative laparotomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Several studies, including one randomized trial, propagate to perform a prophylactic gastrojejunostomy routinely in patients with periampullary cancer found to be unresectable during laparotomy. Others suggest an increase of postoperative complications. Controversy still exists in general surgical practice if a double bypass should be performed routinely in these patients. METHODS: Between December 1998 and March 2002, patients with a periampullary carcinoma who were found to be unresectable during exploration were randomized to receive a double bypass (hepaticojejunostomy and a retrocolic gastrojejunostomy) or a single bypass (hepaticojejunostomy). Randomization was stratified for center and presence of metastases. Patients with gastrointestinal obstruction and patients treated endoscopically for more than 3 months were excluded. Primary endpoints were development of clinical gastric outlet obstruction and surgical intervention for gastric outlet obstruction. Secondary endpoints were mortality, morbidity, hospital stay, survival, and quality of life, measured prospectively by the EORTC-C30 and Pan26 questionnaires. It was decided to perform an interim analysis after inclusion of 50% of the patients (n = 70). RESULTS: Five of the 70 patients randomized were lost to follow-up. From the remaining 65 patients, 36 patients underwent a double and 29 a single bypass. There were no differences in patient demographics, preoperative symptoms, and surgical findings between the groups. Clinical symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction were found in 2 of the 36 patients (5.5%) with a double bypass, and in 12 of the 29 patients (41.4%) with a single bypass (P = 0.001). In the double bypass group, one patient (2.8%) and in the single bypass group 6 patients (20.7%) required (re-)gastrojejunostomy during follow-up (P = 0.04). The absolute risk reduction for reoperation in the double bypass group was 18%, and the numbers needed to treat was 6. Postoperative morbidity rates, including delayed gastric emptying, were 31% in the double versus 28% in the single bypass group (P = 0.12). Median postoperative length of stay was 11 days (range 4–76 days) in the double versus 9 days (range 6–20 days) in the single bypass group (P = 0.06); median survival was 7.2 months in the double versus 8.4 months in the single bypass group (P = 0.15). No differences were found in the quality of life between both groups. After surgery most quality of life scores deteriorated temporarily and were restored to their baseline score (t = −1) within 4 months. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic gastrojejunostomy significantly decreases the incidence of gastric outlet obstruction without increasing complication rates. There were no differences in quality of life between the two groups. Together with the previous randomized trial from the Hopkins group, this study provides sufficient evidence to state that a double bypass consisting of a hepaticojejunostomy and a prophylactic gastrojejunostomy is preferable to a single bypass consisting of only a hepaticojejunostomy in patients undergoing surgical palliation for unresectable periampullary carcinoma. Therefore, the trial was stopped earlier than planned