BackgroundClinical outcomes between the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), autologous blood (AB) and corticosteroid (CS) injection in lateral epicondylitis are still controversial.Materials and methodsA systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted with the aim of comparing relevant clinical outcomes between the use of PRP, AB and CS injection. Medline and Scopus databases were searched from inception to January 2015. A network meta-analysis was performed by applying weight regression for continuous outcomes and a mixed-effect Poisson regression for dichotomous outcomes.ResultsTen of 374 identified studies were eligible. When compared to CS, AB injection showed significantly improved effects with unstandardized mean differences (UMD) in pain visual analog scale (VAS), Disabilities of Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Patient-Related Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) score and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of −2.5 (95 % confidence interval, −3.5, −1.5), −25.5 (−33.8, −17.2), −5.3 (−9.1, −1.6) and 9.9 (5.6, 14.2), respectively. PRP injections also showed significantly improved VAS and DASH scores when compared with CS. PRP showed significantly better VAS with UMD when compared to AB injection. AB injection has a higher risk of adverse effects, with a relative risk of 1.78 (1.00, 3.17), when compared to CS. The network meta-analysis suggested no statistically significant difference in multiple active treatment comparisons of VAS, DASH and PRTEE when comparing PRP and AB injections. However, AB injection had improved DASH score and PPT when compared with PRP injection. In terms of adverse effects, AB injection had a higher risk than PRP injection.ConclusionsThis network meta-analysis provided additional information that PRP injection can improve pain and lower the risk of complications, whereas AB injection can improve pain, disabilities scores and pressure pain threshold but has a higher risk of complications.Level of evidenceLevel I evidence

Background Treatment of acute (B3 weeks) acromioclavicular joint dislocation type III-VI is still controversial. Currently, the two modern techniques that are widely used are hook plate (HP) fixation and coracoclavicular ligament fixation using a suspensory loop device that consists of either a tightrope (single or double), endo-button (single or double), or synthetic ligament and absorbable polydioxansulfate sling. Materials and methods This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant studies that reported Constant-Murley score (CMS), Pain Visual Analog score (VAS) and postoperative complications of either technique were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to 5 October 2015. Results Sixteen studies were included for the analysis of HP fixation, and 25 studies were included for analysis of loop suspensory fixation (LSF). Pooling of mean CMS and VAS scores gave 90.35 (95% CI 87.16, 93.54), 1.51 (95% CI 0.73, 2) in the HP group, and 92.48 (95% CI 90.91, 94.05), 0.32 (95% CI 0, 0.64) in the suspensory loop devices group, respectively. The pooled unstandardized mean differences (UMD) scores of CMS and VAS in LSF were 2.13 (95% CI -1.43, 5.69) and -1.19 (95% CI -2.03, -0.35) when compared to hook plating. The pooled prevalence of LSF and hook plating were 0.08 (95% CI 0.06, 0.10) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.02, 0.08) scores. The chance of having complications in the LSF group was 1.69 (95% CI 1.07, 2.60), which was statistically significantly higher than in the HP group. Conclusion LSF have higher shoulder function scores (CMS) and lower postoperative pain when compared to HP fixation; however, there are higher complication rates with LSF when compared to hook plating. Level of evidence IV.

I.

Surgical management is recommended for unstable distal clavicle fractures. A variety of methods have been previously reported, but there is no current consensus regarding which method is most suitable. Therefore, we have conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare postoperative shoulder function and complications between different fixation methods to identify which class of fixation is best for unstable distal clavicle fractures. We searched the literature systematically using eligibility criteria of all comparative studies that compared postoperative outcomes of coracoclavicular fixation (tight rope, screw or endobutton), hook plating, plate and screws, tension band wiring and transacromial pinning fixation for unstable distal clavicle fractures from PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases up to February 10, 2018. Two reviewers independently extracted data. A network meta-analysis was applied to combine direct and indirect evidence and to estimate the relative effects of the treatment options. The probability of being the best treatment was estimated using surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). Ten comparative studies (n = 505 patients) with one RCT study (n = 42) met the inclusion criteria. Intervention included coracoclavicular fixation (n = 111 patients), hook plating (n = 300 patients), plate and screws (n = 41 patients), tension band wiring (n = 81 patients) and transacromial pinning (n = 14 patients). A network meta-analysis showed that CM scores of coracoclavicular fixation were significantly higher when compared to hook plate and tension band wiring, with pooled mean of 2.98 (95% CI 0.05-5.91) and 7.11 (95% CI 3.04-11.18). For UCLA, CC fixation and plate and screw fixation had significantly higher scores compared to hook plating fixation with a mean score 2.22 (95% CI 0.44-3.99) and 3.20 (95% CI 0.28-6.12), respectively. In terms of complications, plate and screw fixation had lower risk with RRs of 0.63 (95% CI 0.20-1.98), 0.37 (95% CI 0.19-0.72), 0.11 (95% CI 0.04-0.30) and 0.02 (95% CI 0.002-0.16) when compared to coracoclavicular fixation, hook plating, tension band wiring and transacromial pinning. The SUCRA probabilities of CC fixation were in the first rank with 96.8% for CMS, while plate and screw fixation were in the first rank with 67.7 and 93.8% for UCLA score and complications. We recommend using plate and screw and CC fixation as the first- and second-line treatment of unstable distal clavicle fractures. As the quality of studies for this meta-analysis was not high, larger and higher-quality randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these conclusions for informed clinical decision making.

Modified CC stabilization using bidirectional CC loops seated behind the CA ligament is a simple surgical technique that naturally restores stability to the distal clavicle fracture. It also produces predictable outcomes, a high union rate, good to excellent shoulder function, and a low complication rate. The buttons and suture loops were routinely removed in a second operation in order to prevent late stress fracture of the clavicle.