https://www.commed.vcu.edu/Chronic_Disease/2012/cochranrvwrschbias.pdf

The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a tremendous burden for individual patients as well as the global health care industry. While a small minority of joint arthroplasties will become infected, appropriate recognition and management are critical to preserve or restore adequate function and prevent excess morbidity. In this review, we describe the reported risk factors for and clinical manifestations of PJI. We discuss the pathogenesis of PJI and the numerous microorganisms that can cause this devastating infection. The recently proposed consensus definitions of PJI and approaches to accurate diagnosis are reviewed in detail. An overview of the treatment and prevention of this challenging condition is provided.

/pdf/prosthetic-joint-infection-20eesbrxfa.pdf

Prosthetic Joint Infection

Osteoarthritis year in review 2019: epidemiology and therapy.

https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/113143718/Simpson_H_The_clinical_and_cost.....pdf

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (TOPKAT): 5-year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.

The cervical collar has been routinely used for trauma patients for more than 30 years and is a hallmark of state-of-the-art prehospital trauma care. However, the existing evidence for this practice is limited: Randomized, controlled trials are largely missing, and there are uncertain effects on mortality, neurological injury, and spinal stability. Even more concerning, there is a growing body of evidence and opinion against the use of collars. It has been argued that collars cause more harm than good, and that we should simply stop using them. In this critical review, we discuss the pros and cons of collar use in trauma patients and reflect on how we can move our clinical practice forward. Conclusively, we propose a safe, effective strategy for prehospital spinal immobilization that does not include routine use of collars.

/pdf/prehospital-use-of-cervical-collars-in-trauma-patients-a-1dv20mvx0o.pdf

Prehospital use of cervical collars in trauma patients: a critical review.

Objective To present a clear and comprehensive summary of the published data on unicompartmental knee replacement (UKA) or total knee replacement (TKA), comparing domains of outcome that have been shown to be important to patients and clinicians to allow informed decision making. Design Systematic review using data from randomised controlled trials, nationwide databases or joint registries, and large cohort studies. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and Clinical Trials.gov, searched between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2018. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies published in the past 20 years, comparing outcomes of primary UKA with TKA in adult patients. Studies were excluded if they involved fewer than 50 participants, or if translation into English was not available. Results 60 eligible studies were separated into three methodological groups: seven publications from six randomised controlled trials, 17 national joint registries and national database studies, and 36 cohort studies. Results for each domain of outcome varied depending on the level of data, and findings were not always significant. Analysis of the three groups of studies showed significantly shorter hospital stays after UKA than after TKA (−1.20 days (95% confidence interval −1.67 to −0.73), −1.43 (−1.53 to −1.33), and −1.73 (−2.30 to −1.16), respectively). There was no significant difference in pain, based on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), but significantly better functional PROM scores for UKA than for TKA in both non-trial groups (standard mean difference −0.58 (−0.88 to −0.27) and −0.29 (−0.46 to −0.11), respectively). Regarding major complications, trials and cohort studies had non-significant results, but mortality after TKA was significantly higher in registry and large database studies (risk ratio 0.27 (0.16 to 0.45)), as were venous thromboembolic events (0.39 (0.27 to 0.57)) and major cardiac events (0.22 (0.06 to 0.86)). Early reoperation for any reason was higher after TKA than after UKA, but revision rates at five years remained higher for UKA in all three study groups (risk ratio 5.95 (1.29 to 27.59), 2.50 (1.77 to 3.54), and 3.13 (1.89 to 5.17), respectively). Conclusions TKA and UKA are both viable options for the treatment of isolated unicompartmental osteoarthritis. By directly comparing the two treatments, this study demonstrates better results for UKA in several outcome domains. However, the risk of revision surgery was lower for TKA. This information should be available to patients as part of the shared decision making process in choosing treatment options. Systematic review registration PROSPERO number CRD42018089972.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/364/bmj.l352.full.pdf

Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To assess the benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in adults with a meniscal tear and knee pain in three defined populations (taking account of the comparison intervention): (A) all patients (any type of meniscal tear with or without radiographic osteoarthritis); (B) patients with any type of meniscal tear in a non-osteoarthritic knee; and (C) patients with an unstable meniscal tear in a non-osteoarthritic knee. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Datasources A search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov and ISRCTN was performed, unlimited by language or publication date (inception to 18 October 2018). Eligibilitycriteria Randomised controlled trials performed in adults with meniscal tears, comparing APM versus (1) non-surgical intervention; (2) pharmacological intervention; (3) surgical intervention; and (4) no intervention. Results Ten trials were identified: seven compared with non-surgery, one pharmacological and two surgical. Findings were limited by small sample size, small number of trials and cross-over of participants to APM from comparator interventions. In group A (all patients) receiving APM versus non-surgical intervention (physiotherapy), at 6–12 months, there was a small mean improvement in knee pain (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.22 [95% CI 0.03 to 0.40]; five trials, 943 patients; I2 48%; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]: low), knee-specific quality of life (SMD 0.43 [95% CI 0.10 to 0.75]; three trials, 350 patients; I2 56%; GRADE: low) and knee function (SMD 0.18 [95% CI 0.04 to 0.33]; six trials, 1050 patients; I2 27%; GRADE: low). When the analysis was restricted to people without osteoarthritis (group B), there was a small to moderate improvement in knee pain (SMD 0.35 [95% CI 0.04 to 0.66]; three trials, 402 patients; I2 58%; GRADE: very low), knee-specific quality of life (SMD 0.59 [95% CI 0.11 to 1.07]; two trials, 244 patients; I2 71%; GRADE: low) and knee function (SMD 0.30 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.53]; four trials, 507 patients; I2 44%; GRADE: very low). There was no improvement in knee pain, function or quality of life in patients receiving APM compared with placebo surgery at 6–12 months in group A or B (pain: SMD 0.08 [95% CI −0.24 to 0.41]; one trial, 146 patients; GRADE: low; function: SMD −0.08 [95% CI −0.41 to 0.24]; one trial, 146 patients; GRADE: high; quality of life: SMD 0.05 [95% CI −0.27 to 0.38]; one trial; 146 patients; GRADE: high). No trials were identified for people in group C. Conclusion Performing APM in all patients with knee pain and a meniscal tear is not appropriate, and surgical treatment should not be considered the first-line intervention. There may, however, be a small-to-moderate benefit from APM compared with physiotherapy for patients without osteoarthritis. No trial has been limited to patients failing non-operative treatment or patients with an unstable meniscal tear in a non-arthritic joint; research is needed to establish the value of APM in this population. Protocol registration number PROSPERO CRD42017056844.

/pdf/arthroscopic-partial-meniscectomy-for-meniscal-tears-of-the-45orzjdo64.pdf

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for meniscal tears of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Routine spinal immobilization for trauma patients has become established in developed countries throughout the world. Cervical spinal injury is, however, relatively rare in trauma patients, and immobilization practice was developed largely without firm supporting evidence. In recent years, published evidence has suggested that spinal immobilization may in some cases be harmful. The purpose of this article is to critically review the evidence and the implications for trauma patient management and outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database, Index Medicus and article references with a broad search strategy. Relevant results were analysed and critically reviewed in the context of trauma patient management. Our findings present a growing body of evidence documenting the risks and complications of routine spinal immobilization. There is a possibility that immobilization could be contributing to mortality and morbidity in some patients and this warrants further investigation.

Routine spinal immobilization in trauma patients: What are the advantages and disadvantages?

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/files/177112467/arthroscopic.pdf

Adverse outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: a study of 700 000 procedures in the national Hospital Episode Statistics database for England

The majority of displaced intracapsular fractures in our unit are managed with a Thompson hip hemiarthroplasty. Recent UK guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has, however, advised against the continued used of the Thompson implant in patients with hip fracture. The aim of this study was to review the outcomes and complications after Thompson hip hemiarthroplasty, including the impact of modern surgical approaches and cementing, whilst controlling for confounding factors. We reviewed the outcomes following Thompson hip hemiarthroplasty from a series of 807 cases performed between April 2008 and November 2013. Of these, 721 (89.3%) were cemented and 86 (10.7%) uncemented. A total of 575 (71.3%) procedures were performed in female patients. The anterolateral approach was performed in 753 (93.3%) and the posterior approach with enhanced soft tissue repair in 54 (6.7%). Overall, there were 23 dislocations (2.9%). Dislocation following the posterior approach occurred in 13.0% (seven of 54) in comparison to 2.1% (16 of 753) with the anterolateral approach (odds ratio (OR) 8.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8–26.3), p We recommend against the continued use of the posterior approach in hip hemiarthroplasty, as enhanced soft tissue repair did not reduce the dislocation rates to an acceptable level in this series utilising the Thompson implant. Our findings, however, demonstrate satisfactory results for patients treated with the Thompson hip hemiarthroplasty performed through an anterolateral approach. We suggest that the continued use of this implant in a carefully selected patient cohort is justifiable.

Simon G F Abram

Papers

Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for meniscal tears of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Routine spinal immobilization in trauma patients: What are the advantages and disadvantages?

Adverse outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: a study of 700 000 procedures in the national Hospital Episode Statistics database for England

Outcomes of 807 Thompson hip hemiarthroplasty procedures and the effect of surgical approach on dislocation rates.