METHODS: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria including 1761 cadaveric limbs.
RESULTS: The results were as following: (a) the mean palmaris longus tendon length was of 13.9 ± 2.6 cm, (b) the mean ratio palmaris longus tendon length/forearm length was of 0.545 ± 0.06, (c) the weighted correlation value was of 0.686, and (d) the mean palmaris longus tendon width was of 4.0 ± 1.7 mm. Only five studies reported a palmaris longus tendon length of more than 15 cm. The palmaris longus tendon length was shown to vary between ancestries; the Japanese had the shortest while Malaysian the longest palmaris longus tendons. All studies but one reported a palmaris longus tendon mean width of more than 3 mm where the minimal mean palmaris longus tendon width was of 2.5 mm.
CONCLUSION: While the requested length depends on the recipient site and/or type of reconstructive surgery, the palmaris longus tendon often met the required diameter for grafting. Our review demonstrated that while palmaris longus length varies between ancestries, its width is often adequate for grafting. In addition, the forearm length could be a good predictor of palmaris longus tendon length; such correlation could assist surgeons when planning to use palmaris longus tendon as a graft source.
METHODS: Orthopaedic surgeons nationwide were invited through email and text messages to answer an online self-administered questionnaire collecting demographic information, COVID-19 exposure experience, perception of risk, and impact on orthopaedic practice.
RESULTS: Of the respondents, 4.7% and 14.0% were involved in frontline treatment for COVID-19 patients with non-orthopaedic and orthopaedic problem, respectively. Respondents working in Ministry of Health had highest percentage of involvement as frontliner, 7.8% (8/103) and 20.4% (21/103) for non-orthopaedic and orthopaedic related COVID-19 treatment, respectively (not significant). Their main concern was an infection of family members (125/235, 53.2%). Majority of respondents were still working (223/235, 94.9%), running outpatient clinics (168/223, 75.3%), and continued with their semi-emergency (190/223, 85.2%) and emergency surgeries (213/223, 95.5%). Of the surgeons, 11.2% (25/223) did not screen their patients for COVID-19 prior to elective surgeries, 30.9% (69/223) did not have any training on proper handling of personal protective equipment (PPE), 84.8% (189/223) make decision to manage more conservatively due to COVID-19 and 61.9% (138/223) had their income affected. Of the surgeons, 19.3% (43/223) started using telehealth facilities.
CONCLUSION: Direct exposure to treatment of COVID-19 patients among the respondent is low and the main concern was infecting their family member. There are still several surgeons who did not conduct preoperative COVID-19 screening and practice without proper PPE training.
METHODS: Literature search was performed to identify all level I and II studies reporting the clinical and structural outcome of any ACI generation in human knees using the following medical electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and NICE healthcare database. The level of evidence, sample size calculation and risk of bias were determined for all included studies to enable quality assessment.
RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in the analysis, reporting on a total of 1094 patients. Of the 20 studies, 13 compared ACI with other treatment modalities, seven compared different ACI cell delivery methods, and one compared different cell source for implantation. Studies included were heterogeneous in baseline design, preventing meta-analysis. Data showed a trend towards similar outcomes when comparing ACI generations with other repair techniques and when comparing different cell delivery methods and cell source selection. Majority of the studies (80 %) were level II evidence, and overall the quality of studies can be rated as average to low, with the absence of power analysis in 65 % studies.
CONCLUSION: At present, there are insufficient data to conclude any superiority of ACI techniques. Considering its two-stage operation and cost, it may be appropriate to reserve ACI for patients with larger defects or those who have had inadequate response to other repair procedures until hard evidence enables specific clinical recommendations be made.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.