MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty surviving patients with expandable endoprosthesis from 2006 till 2015 were scored using Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) outcomes instrument and reviewed retrospectively for range of motion of respected joints, limb length discrepancy, number of surgeries performed, complications and oncological outcomes. Patients with less than 2 years of follow-up were excluded from this study.
RESULTS: Forty-five percentage patients reached skeletal maturity with initial growing endoprosthesis and 25% of patients were revised to adult modular prosthesis. One hundred fifty-seven surgeries were performed over the 9-year period. The average MSTS score was 90.83%. The mortality rate was 10% within 5 years due to advanced disease. Infection and implant failure rate was 15% each. The event-free survival was 50% and overall survival rate was 90%.
CONCLUSION: There is no single best option for reconstruction in skeletally immature. This study demonstrates a favourable functional and survival outcome of paediatric patients with expandable endoprosthesis. The excellent MSTS functional scores reflect that patients were satisfied and adjusted well to activities of daily living following surgery despite the complications.
METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis to identify relevant randomized controlled trials involving infrapatellar fat pad resection and infrapatellar fat pad preservation during total knee arthroplasty in electronic databases, including Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Library, Highwire, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang database, up to March 2020.
RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials, involving 783 TKAs (722 patients), were included in the systematic review. Outcome measures included patellar tendon length (PTL), Insall-Salvati ratio (ISR), rate of anterior knee pain, Knee Society Scores (KSS), and knee range of motion. The meta-analysis identified a trend toward the shortening of the patellar tendon with IPFP resection at 6 months (P = 0.0001) and 1 year (P = 0.001). We found no statistical difference in ISR (P = 0.87), rate of anterior knee pain within 6 months (p = 0.45) and 1 year (p = 0.38), KSS at 1 year (p = 0.77), and knee range of motion within 6 months (p = 0.61) and 1 year (0.46).
CONCLUSION: Based on the available level I evidence, we were unable to conclude that one surgical technique of IPFP can definitively be considered superior over the other. More adequately powered and better-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies with long-term follow-up are required to produce evidence-based guidelines regarding IPFP resection.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether knee sleeves can significantly improve the biomechanical variables for knee problems.
METHOD: Systematic literature search was conducted on four online databases - PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Springer Link - to find peer-reviewed and relevant scientific papers on knee sleeves published from January 2005 to January 2015. Study quality was assessed using the Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale (SEQES).
RESULTS: Twenty studies on knee sleeves usage identified from the search were included in the review because of their heterogeneous scope of coverage. Twelve studies found significant improvement in gait parameters (3) and functional parameters (9), while eight studies did not find any significant effects of knee sleeves usage.
CONCLUSION: Most improvements were observed in: proprioception for healthy knees, gait and balance for osteoarthritic knees, and functional improvement of injured knees. This review suggests that knee sleeves can effect functional improvements to knee problems. However, further work is needed to confirm this hypothesis, due to the lack of homogeneity and rigor of existing studies.