No abstract

No abstract

Purpose To assess whether the use of Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) produces a clinical beneit in patients with rotator cuf disorders, treated either conservatively or surgically. Methods A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines on three databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of PRP in patients with rotator cuf disorders, treated either conservatively or surgically. A meta-analysis was performed on articles reporting results for Constant, UCLA, VAS, SST scores and retear rate. The RoB 2.0 and the modiied Coleman Methodology Score were used to assess methodological quality. Results A total of 36 RCTs (20 surgical, 16 conservative) were included, for a total of 2,443 patients. Conservative treatment showed high heterogeneity and no clear consensus in favour of PRP. The meta-analysis of the studies with surgical treatment showed no beneit in using PRP in any of the clinical outcomes, either at the short or medium/long-term follow-up. However, the retear rate was lower with PRP augmentation (p < 0.001). The overall quality of the studies was moderate to high, with the surgical studies presenting a lower risk of bias than the conservative studies. Conclusion The use of PRP as augmentation in rotator cuf surgical repair signiicantly reduces the retear rate. However, no beneits were documented in terms of clinical outcomes. PRP application through injection in patients treated conservatively also failed to present any clear advantage. While there are many studies in the literature with several RCTs of moderate to high quality, the high heterogeneity of products and studies remains a signiicant limitation to fully understanding PRP potential in this ield. Level of evidence Level I.

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.

To understand the potential and limitations of the different available surgical techniques used to treat large, long-bone diaphyseal defects by focusing on union, complication, re-intervention, and failure rates, summarizing the pros and cons of each technique. A literature search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to March 16th, 2022; Inclusion criteria were clinical studies written in English, of any level of evidence, with more than five patients, describing the treatment of diaphyseal bone defects. The primary outcome was the analysis of results in terms of primary union, complication, reintervention, and failure rate of the four major groups of techniques: bone allograft and autograft, bone transport, vascularized and non-vascularized fibular graft, and endoprosthesis. The statistical analysis was carried out according to Neyeloff et al., and the Mantel–Haenszel method was used to provide pooled rates across the studies. The influence of the various techniques on union rates, complication rates, and reintervention rates was assessed by a z test on the pooled rates with their corresponding 95% CIs. Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence was based on Downs and Black’s “Checklist for Measuring Quality” and Rob 2.0 tool. Certainty of yielded evidence was evaluated with the GRADE system. Seventy-four articles were included on 1781 patients treated for the reconstruction of diaphyseal bone defects, 1496 cases in the inferior limb, and 285 in the upper limb, with trauma being the main cause of bone defect. The meta-analysis identified different outcomes in terms of results and risks. Primary union, complications, and reinterventions were 75%, 26% and 23% for bone allografts and autografts, 91%, 62% and 19% for the bone transport group, and 78%, 38% and 23% for fibular grafts; mean time to union was between 7.8 and 8.9 months in all these groups. Results varied according to the different aetiologies, endoprosthesis was the best solution for tumour, although with a 22% failure rate, while trauma presented a more composite outcome, with fibular grafts providing a faster time to union (6.9 months), while cancellous and cortical-cancellous grafts caused less complications, reinterventions, and failures. The literature about this topic has overall limited quality. However, important conclusions can be made: Many options are available to treat critical-size defects of the diaphysis, but no one appears to be an optimal solution in terms of a safe, satisfactory, and long-lasting outcome. Regardless of the bone defect cause, bone transport techniques showed a better primary union rate, but bone allograft and autograft had fewer complication, reintervention, and failure rates than the other techniques. The specific lesion aetiology represents a critical aspect influencing potential and limitations and therefore the choice of the most suitable technique to address the challenging large diaphyseal defects.