Surgical management of end-stage rheumatoid wrists is a contentious topic. The standard surgical treatment has traditionally been wrist arthrodesis. Wrist arthroplasty, however, offers an alternative that preserves some wrist motion. A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases was conducted. Data from 23 studies representing 343 cases of wrist arthrodesis and 618 cases of wrist arthroplasty were included. Complication rates were 17% for arthrodesis and 19% for arthroplasty, and both procedures were effective at alleviating pain and improving grip strength. Functional assessment by Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and Patient-Related Wrist Evaluation of arthroplasty patients revealed clinically meaningful functional improvement compared with preoperative measurements. In contrast to previously published findings both procedures demonstrated comparable complication rates. While this can be speculated to be from advancements in prosthetics, robust long-term follow-up data on wrist arthroplasty are not available yet.

Objectives:Blood flow restriction (BFR) training is an increasingly applied tool with potential benefits in muscular hypertrophy, strength, and endurance. This study investigates the effectiveness of BFR training relative to other forms of training on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and endurance.Data sources:We performed systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed and assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.Main results:We included 53 randomized controlled trials with 31 included in meta-analyses. For muscular strength comparing low-intensity BFR (LI-BFR) training with high-intensity resistance training (HIRT), the pooled mean difference (MD) for 1 repetition maximum was 5.34 kg (95% CI, 2.58-8.09; P < 0.01) favoring HIRT. When comparing LI-BFR training with HIRT for torque, the MD was 6.35 N·m (95% CI, 0.5-12.3; P = 0.04) also favoring HIRT. However, comparing LI-BFR with low-intensity resistance training (LIRT) for torque, there was a MD of 9.94 N·m (95% CI, 5.43-14.45; P < 0.01) favoring BFR training. Assessing muscle hypertrophy, the MD in cross-sectional area was 0.96 cm2 (95% CI, 0.21-1.7; P = 0.01) favoring pooled BFR training compared with nonocclusive training. Assessing endurance, V̇o2 maximum demonstrated a greater mean increase of 0.37 mL/kg/min (95% CI, −0.97 to 3.17; P = 0.64) in BFR endurance training compared with endurance training alone.Conclusion:Blood flow restriction training produced increases in muscular strength, hypertrophy, and endurance. Comparing LI-BFR training with HIRT, HIRT was a significantly better training modality for increasing muscle hypertrophy and strength. However, LI-BFR was superior when compared with a similar low-intensity protocol. Blood flow restriction training is potentially beneficial to those unable to tolerate the high loads of HIRT; however, better understanding of its risk to benefit ratio is needed before clinical application.Level of evidence:Level 1.

No abstract

Background: To determine the clinical outcomes following fibula nail fixation and to identify the indication for the use of fibula nails in lower limb fractures. Methods: Retrospective study of adult patients from 2 major trauma centers (MTCs) and 9 trauma units (TUs) who underwent fibula nail fixation for AO/OTA 44 fractures between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2020. Outcome measures included infection, metalwork complications, nonunion or malunion, time to union, and length of inpatient hospital stay. Results: Ninety-five patients were included, with a mean age of 66 years; 57.9% of patients were female. The average body mass index was 30. Sixty-nine patients (72.6%) sustained a Weber B and 24 (27.4%) sustained a Weber C fracture. In addition, 26.3% were open fractures and all patients had soft tissue compromise affecting the lateral malleolus. The calculated infection rate for fibula nail was 4.2% and metalwork complication rate was 5.2%. The nonunion and malunion rate was 8.4% and rate of removal of hardware was 2.1%. The average time to union was 12.5 weeks, and length of inpatient stay was 9.4 days (SD 10). Conclusion: This multicenter study demonstrates that use of a fibula nail appears to be a safe approach to treating patients who have a physiologically higher risk of surgery, poor skin condition, and a complex fracture pattern.