Both acute and chronic tendinopathy result in high morbidity, requiring management that is often lengthy and expensive. However, limited and conflicting scientific evidence surrounding current management options has presented a challenge when trying to identify the best treatment for tendinopathy. As a result of shortcomings of current treatments, response to available therapies is often poor, resulting in frustration in both patients and physicians. Due to a lack of understanding of basic tendon-cell biology, further scientific investigation is needed in the field for the development of biological solutions. Optimization of new delivery systems and therapies that spatially and temporally mimic normal tendon physiology hold promise for clinical application. This review focuses on the clinical importance of tendinopathy, the structure of healthy tendons, tendon injury, and healing, and a discussion of current approaches for treatment that highlight the need for the development of new nonsurgical interventions.

Background: The choice between internal and external distraction osteogenesis for midface advancement in patients with syndromic craniosynostosis is based primarily on surgeon preference and expertise. However, differences in outcomes between the two techniques have been sparingly compared. In this work, the authors performed a systematic review to compare outcomes between internal versus external midface distraction. Methods: A systematic review was performed of studies published between 1998 and 2018 (61 studies included; n = 689 patients). Operative characteristics, early reoperations, complications, and relapse rates were extracted. Bias evaluation was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa instrument. Statistical analyses were performed with independent samples t tests and linear regression analyses (p < 0.05 considered significant). Results: The authors found that external distraction was associated with more Le Fort III osteotomies and hardware adjustments (p = 0.023), whereas internal distraction was associated with more monobloc osteotomies and longer consolidation times (p = 0.008). No significant differences in the distance of midface advancement, reoperations, complications, or relapse rates were noted between internal versus external distraction, although external distraction trended toward a slightly higher relapse rate. Regardless of distraction protocol, consolidation time was found to be a strong negative predictor for relapse (beta = −0.792; p = 0.02). Conclusions: No significant differences were demonstrated in advancement distance, reoperative rates, complication rates, or relapse rates for internal versus external distraction for midface advancement. Regardless of distraction type, consolidation time was strongly inversely associated with relapse rates. The trend toward higher relapse in external distraction is potentially explained by the significantly lower consolidation times.

Background: Functional and aesthetic nasal operations are some of the most common plastic surgery procedures performed in the United States. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of septoplasty, septorhinoplasty, and rhinoplasty procedures on postoperative olfactory function and their relationship to nasal airflow and quality of life. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed evaluating olfactory function following nasal surgery. Preoperative and postoperative values for olfaction, nasal airflow, and quality of life/nasal symptoms were analyzed. The effect size was calculated from each study and used for meta-analysis. As studies evaluated patients at different points in the postoperative period, the latest time point reported by each study was used in the meta-analysis. The 95 percent confidence interval of the effect size was calculated for each study. Study quality was assessed using the Jadad and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies instruments. All included studies were Level of Evidence II. Results: There were 25 included studies. Following nasal surgery, patients experienced significant improvements in olfaction (p < 0.001), nasal airflow (p < 0.001), and quality of life/nasal symptoms (p < 0.001). Patients often experienced a transient decrease in olfaction immediately after surgery, followed by improvement postoperatively. Preoperative olfactory dysfunction rates were low and postoperative dysfunction was equally low. Olfaction improvement was directly correlated with improvement in nasal airflow and quality of life. Conclusions: Functional and aesthetic nasal operations appear to significantly improve olfaction, which is directly correlated with nasal airflow. Some studies report a transient worsening of these measures in the immediate postoperative period, which subsequently improved at later time points.