No abstract

Background There is still a lack of remarkable consensus regarding the clinical efficacy of the application of fibular strut augmentation (FSA) combined with a locking plate for proximal humeral fractures. A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of the use of FSAs in open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures was conducted. Methods A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science Core Collection, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify trials that compared the clinical outcomes of proximal humeral fractures treated using a locking plate with or without FSA. The primary outcome measures were postoperative complications, radiographical findings, functional recovery scores, and postoperative range of motion (ROM). Data were pooled and analysed using a random-effects model based on the Der Simonian and Laird method. Results Eight studies involving 596 participants were included for further analysis. Compared with using a locking plate independently, the additional application of FSA was associated with the likelihood of lower risk of overall complications (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.22–0.65; I2 = 12.22%; 95% PI 0.14–0.98) and the rate of patients with orthopaedic complications (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.25–0.92; I2 = 7.52%; 95% PI 0.16–1.45), less changes in postoperative humeral head height (MD − 2.40; 95% CI − 2.49 to − 2.31; I2 = 0.00%; 95% PI − 2.61 to − 2.20) and the neck–shaft angle (MD − 6.30; 95% CI − 7.23 to − 5.36; I2 = 79.32%; 95% PI − 10.06 to − 2.53), superior functional outcomes (Constant–Murley score: MD 5.07; 95% CI 3.40 to 6.74; I2 = 0.00%; 95% PI 2.361–7.78; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score: MD 5.08; 95% CI 3.67 to 6.49; I2 = 0.00%; 95% PI 1.98–8.18), and better postoperative ROM in terms of forward elevation and external rotation. However, the evidence regarding postoperative abduction was insufficient. Conclusion Meta-analytic pooling of current evidence showed a significant association between the application of FSAs and favourable clinical outcomes in terms of postoperative complications, radiographical findings, functional recovery, and postoperative elevation and external rotation.

Background A variety of bone graft substitutes have been introduced into the treatment of bone non-unions. However, clinical outcomes from current evidences are various and conflicting. This study aimed to present the preliminary outcomes of a treatment protocol in which the combination of demineralized bone matrix (DBM) and platelet rich plasma (PRP) was used as a bone graft substitute for long bone non-unions. Methods Data of this retrospective study were reviewed and collected from a consecutive case series involving 43 patients who presented with a long bone non-union and were treated in our department from October 2018 to May 2019. The combination of DMB and PRP was applied as a bone defect filler in 16 patients, whilst the other 27 patients were treated with iliac bone autografting. Patients’ demographics, postoperative complications and the result of bone union were compared and evaluated. Results The demographic data between the two groups were comparable. No significant difference was found with regard to the incidence of postoperative complications. No graft rejection, heterotopic ossification or other complications were noted. The distribution of bony healing time was rather scattered but did not differ significantly between the groups (7.533 ± 3.357 months vs. 6.625 ± 2.516 months; P=0.341). Union was identified radiographically in 15 of 16 patients in the DBM+PRP group and in 24 of 27 patients in autograft group. Conclusions The present study identified that low incidence of postoperative complications and satisfactory bony healing rate could be achieved in the treatment of long bone non-unions augmented with the combination of DBM and PRP. Although these findings might indicate the promising future of this treatment protocol, larger and higher quality studies should also be executed to assess its routine use.

Introduction There is no consensus regarding the superiority between intramedullary nailing and primary arthroplasty in the management of intertrochanteric femoral fractures. This systematic review was performed to investigate and compare the clinical efficacy of intertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with these 2 methods. Materials and methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of science core collection and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials which compared the clinical outcomes of intertrochanteric fractures treated with either intramedullary nails or primary arthroplasty. Relevant data of the postoperative complications, reoperations, mortality and functional assessment, were pooled and presented graphically. Results A total of 6 trials with 427 participants were identified and included in the analyses. The pooled estimates suggested these 2 techniques have comparable risks in terms of overall complications (pooled risk ratio [RR] .80; 95% confidence interval [CI] .43 to 1.43; I2 = 79.94%), the rate of patients with orthopedic complications (RR .71, 95% CI .40 to 1.27; I2 = .00%), reoperations (RR 1.33, 95% CI .48 to 3.71; I2 = .00%), the overall mortality (RR .52; 95%CI .26 to 1.02; I2 = 31.35%) and 1-year mortality (RR .67; 95%CI .38 to 1.19; I2 = .00%). Primary arthroplasty associated with higher HHS at 3 months postoperatively (MD -21.95, 95% CI -28.29 to −15.60; I2 = 70.44%). While the difference was not significant at 6 months (MD 2.32, 95% CI -1.55 to 6.18; I2 = .00%), and even reversed at 12 months postoperatively (MD 13.02, 95% CI 8.14 to 17.90; I2 = 73.42%). Conclusions Meta-analytic pooling of current evidences demonstrated that primary arthroplasty is related to a better early functional recovery at the early stage postoperatively, but the long-term result tends to favor to intramedullary nailing. The differences in overall complications, the rate of patients with orthopedic complications, reoperations, overall and 1-year mortality did not reach a significant level.