Cross-linking of polyethylene greatly reduces its wear rate in hip simulator studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing cross-linked to conventional polyethylene liners for total hip arthroplasty to determine if there is a clinical reduction of: 1) wear rates, 2) radiographic osteolysis, and 3) need for total hip revision. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases was conducted from inception to May 2010 for all trials involving the use of cross-linked polyethylene for total hip arthroplasty. Eligibility for inclusion in the review was: use of a random allocation of treatments; a treatment arm receiving cross-linked polyethylene and a treatment arm receiving conventional polyethylene for total hip arthroplasty; and use of radiographic wear as an outcome measure. Eligible studies were obtained and read in full by two co-authors who then independently applied the Checklist to Evaluate a Report of a Nonpharmacological Trial to each study. Pooled mean differences were calculated for the following continuous outcomes: bedding-in, linear wear rate, three dimensional linear wear rate, volumetric wear rate, and total linear wear. Pooled risk ratios were calculated for radiographic osteolysis and revision hip arthroplasty.Purpose
Method
Periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI) during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been reported with promising effects, but some results still remain controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficiency and safety of PMDI technique in TKA. We systematically conducted an electronic search in the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science (SCI), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). Two independent reviewers completed data collection and assessment of methodological quality according to the Cochrane Handbook 5.1. The quality of evidence of outcomes was judged using GRADE criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.1 software.Backgroud:
Methods:
The subvastus approach has potential early advantages over the medial parapatellar approach because it avoids disruption of the quadriceps tendon. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the functional outcomes and complications associated with these two approaches. Following an extensive search of prospective trials published in any language before 1st August 2014, studies were screened in duplicate according to pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Sixteen randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis comprising of 1,711 total knee replacements. Knee society score and range of movement were significantly superior in the subvastus group at early and one-year follow up. The subvastus approach was also associated with a statistically significant reduction in the requirement for intraoperative lateral release, perioperative blood loss, visual analogue score for pain on day 1 post operatively, and the number of days to achieve active straight leg raising. Both tourniquet time and total operative time were increased for the subvastus approach. There was no statistically significant difference in complications such as stiffness requiring MUA, superficial and deep infection and deep vein thrombosis. The subvastus approach confers a functional advantage over the medial parapatellar approach to the knee which lasts for a minimum of one year postoperatively.
To investigate the effectiveness of surgical fusion for chronic low back pain (CLBP) compared to non-surgical intervention, databases were searched from 1966-2005. The meta-analysis was based on the mean difference in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) change from baseline to follow-up. Four studies were eligible (634 patients). The pooled mean difference in ODI was 4.13 in favour of surgery (95% CI: -0.82-9.08; p=0.10; I2=44.4%). Surgery was associated with a 16% pooled rate of complication (95% CI: 12-20%, I2=0%). The cumulative evidence does not support surgical fusion for CLBP due to the marginal improvement in ODI which is of minimal clinical importance.
Randomised controlled trials (RCT) published in the British volume of the JBJS from United Kingdom based institutes have been analysed to review the level of involvement of junior doctors over the past 25 years (1988 to 2012) which included three different training eras: Pre-Calman (1988 to 1995), Calman (1996 to 2006), and MMC (2007 to 2012). Authors were divided into: Senior doctors, Registrars, Fellows, Senior House Officers/ Foundation Doctors, and Others. The level of involvement has been identified as being first author, senior author or co-author. One hundred and fifty nine RCTs have been identified with a total of 705 authors. Eighty eight registrars, 32 fellows and 19 SHO/ Foundation doctors have been involved in RCT published over the last 25 years (19.7%). Registrars constituted 15% of all authors in the pre-Calman, 12% in the Calman and 11% in the MMC periods. They constituted 33% of all first authors in the pre-Calman, 21% in the Calman, and 12% in the MMC periods. With regards to SHO/ Foundation doctors, they were only 2% of all authors in the pre-Calman, 3% in the Calman, and 4% in the MMC periods. They were not the first author in any RCT in the pre-Calman period, rising to 7% in both the Calman and MMC periods. Our study shows that registrars involvement was at its highest in the pre-Calman era with gradual decline in their involvement in the subsequent training eras. SHO/Foundation doctors involvement remains very low, however showing increasing rate in the MMC era.
High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
evaluating surgical therapies are fundamental to the delivery of
evidence-based orthopaedics. Orthopaedic clinical trials have unique
challenges; however, when these challenges are overcome, evidence
from trials can be definitive in its impact on surgical practice.
In this review, we highlight several issues that pose potential
challenges to orthopaedic investigators aiming to perform surgical randomised
controlled trials. We begin with a discussion on trial design issues,
including the ethics of sham surgery, the importance of sample size,
the need for patient-important outcomes, and overcoming expertise
bias. We then explore features surrounding the execution of surgical
randomised trials, including ethics review boards, the importance
of organisational frameworks, and obtaining adequate funding. Cite this article:
