Search

Purpose: Minimizing complications is an important focus in hip hemiarthroplasty (HHA) for femoral neck fracture (FNF) patients given the associated high morbidity and mortality rates. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical and functional outcomes associated with the direct anterior approach (DAA) compared to other surgical approaches used for HHA. Methods: Studies evaluating HHA-treated FNFs using the DAA were compared through meta-analysis to all other surgical approaches combined and as distinct subgroups. Outcomes included overall complication rate, mortality rate, dislocation rate, reoperation rate, periprosthetic fracture rate, infection rate, length of stay (LOS), mobility, perioperative blood loss, operative time, and postoperative pain. Results: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, totaling 2,018 HHAs. DAA significantly reduced the overall complication rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.94, p = 0.01), dislocation rate (OR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.77, p = 0.01), and LOS (mean difference (MD) = −1.31 days, 95% CI − 2.12 to − 0.50, p = 0.002). Findings from studies that were not appropriate for meta-analysis were qualitatively summarized and suggested improved mobility and reduced postoperative pain with the DAA. Significant differences were not detected in any of the remaining outcomes. Conclusion: The DAA HHA appears to be safer, reduces hospital stay, and may improve early functional recovery. This article supports the DAA HHA as a safe option for the management of displaced intracapsular FNFs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The treatment of giant cell tumors (GCT) of the distal radius remains challenging, with no consensus on the optimal surgical management. Surgical management remains the mainstay of treatment with options including intralesional curettage and en-bloc resection with reconstruction. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the outcomes of these two procedures. Methods: Using OVID-Medline and Embase databases, a systematic literature search was performed. Comparative studies, assessing intralesional curettage and en-bloc resection in patients with GCTs of the distal radius, were included. Data regarding rates of local recurrence, metastasis, overall complications, and functional outcomes, were collected and analyzed. The ROBINS-I tool was utilized for risk of bias appraisal within each study outcome. Results: Thirteen studies (n = 373 patients) reporting on 191 intralesional curettage procedures and 182 en-bloc resections were included in the analysis. The average age of participants was 31.9 (SD ± 2.4) years and average follow-up was 7.1 (SD ± 3.6) years. Patients that underwent intralesional curettage were more likely to develop local recurrence (Risk Ratio (RR) 3.3, 95% CI, [2.1, 5.4], p < 0.00001) when compared to patients that underwent en-bloc resection. In Campanacci grade 3 lesions, the risk for local recurrence was 5.9 (95% CI, [2.2, 16.3], p = 0.0006) times higher in patients that received intralesional curettage. Patients that underwent intralesional curettage showed an 84% reduction in the relative risk of developing overall complications compared to en-bloc resection (95% CI, [0.1, 0.4], p < 0.00001), and a larger decrease in Visual Analog Scale and lower Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores (p < 0.00001). Risk ratio for developing a local recurrence, with PMMA versus bone graft following an intralesional procedure was not significant (RR 1.2, 95% CI, [0.6, 2.6], p = 0.62). Conclusions: In the surgical management of GCT of the distal radius, intralesional curettage increased local recurrence compared to en-bloc resection with reconstruction, particularly in grade 3 tumors. However, it led to significantly fewer operative complications, lower pain scores, and improved functional outcomes compared to en-bloc resection. Both treatment options remain relevant in the contemporary management of GCTs of the distal radius. Surgical decision making should include both patient and tumor factors when determining the optimal treatment strategy for these patients. Level 3 Evidence: Meta-analysis of Level 3 studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]