Search

Background: Medial epicondylitis (ME) is a pathological condition that arises in laborers and athletes secondary to repetitive wrist flexion and forearm pronation causing degeneration of the common flexor tendon. Although nonoperative management has demonstrated high rates of success, no standardized surgical technique has been established for situations when operative management is indicated. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the surgical treatment options for ME and evaluate the associated patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We hypothesized that surgical management of ME would vary across studies but no technique would prove to be superior. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Searches were conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane databases between 1980 and April 2020. All level 1 to 4 studies were identified that focused on surgical management and PROs in the setting of ME. Description of surgical technique and PROs were required for inclusion. Investigators independently dually abstracted and reviewed the studies for eligibility. Weighted means were calculated for demographic characteristics and available PROs. Results: Overall, 851 studies were identified according to the search criteria. A total of 16 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and therefore were evaluated. Three surgical techniques were found: open (13 studies), arthroscopic (2 studies), and percutaneous (1 study). Descriptions of the open technique were subdivided into those with (7 studies) and without (6 studies) common flexor tendon repair. Analysis included 479 elbows; patients were primarily male (58.3%) with a weighted mean age of 47.2 years. Weighted mean follow-up was 4.6 years. Tennis and manual laborer were the most common sport and occupation, respectively. Surgical success ranged from 63% to 100%, with a low complication rate of 4.3%. Success rates for return to sports and work were 81%-100% and 66.7%-100%, respectively, and only 1 study reported a return to work rate <90%. Conclusion: This systematic review demonstrates that surgical intervention for refractory ME often has a high success rate. Regardless of surgical technique performed, patients generally demonstrated an improvement in PROs, and an encouraging number returned to work with limited complications. Further investigation is necessary to determine superiority among open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction (UCLR) is a viable treatment option for patients with UCL insufficiency, especially in the overhead throwing athlete. Within the clinical literature, there is still no universally agreed upon optimal rehabilitation protocol and timing for return to sport (RTS) after UCLR. Hypothesis: There will be significant heterogeneity with respect to RTS criteria after UCLR. Most surgeons will utilize time-based criteria rather than functional or performance-based criteria for RTS after UCLR. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: All level 1 to 4 studies that evaluated UCLR with a minimum 1-year follow-up were eligible for inclusion. Studies lacking explicit RTS criteria, studies that treated UCL injury nonoperatively or by UCL repair, or studies reporting revision UCLR were excluded. Each study was analyzed for methodologic quality, RTS, timeline of RTS, and RTS rate. Results: Overall, 1346 studies were identified, 33 of which met the inclusion criteria. These included 3480 athletes across 21 different sports. All studies reported RTS rates either as overall rates or via the Conway-Jobe scale. Timelines for RTS ranged from 6.5 to 16 months. Early bracing with progressive range of motion (ROM) (93.9%), strengthening (84.8%), and participation in an interval throwing program (81.8%) were the most common parameters emphasized in these rehabilitation protocols. While all studies included at least 1 of 3 metrics for the RTS value assessment, most commonly postoperative rehabilitation (96.97%) and set timing after surgery (96.97%), no article completely defined RTS criteria after UCLR. Conclusion: Overall, 93.9% of studies report utilizing bracing with progressive ROM, 84.8% reported strengthening, and 81.8% reported participation in an interval throwing program as rehabilitation parameters after UCLR. In addition, 96.97% reported timing after surgery as a criterion for RTS; however, there is a wide variability within the literature on the recommended time from surgery to return to activity. Future research should focus on developing a comprehensive checklist of functional and performance-based criteria for safe RTS after UCLR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fresh osteochondral allograft (OCA) is a treatment option that allows for the transfer of size-matched allograft cartilage and subchondral bone into articular defects of the knee. Although long-term studies show good functional improvement with OCA, there continues to be wide variability and a lack of consensus in terms of postoperative rehabilitation protocols and return to sport. Purpose: To systematically review the literature and evaluate the reported rehabilitation protocols after OCA of the knee, including weightbearing and range of motion (ROM) restrictions as well as return-to-play criteria. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing Allied Health Literature, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane databases were searched according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for studies on knee OCA. Studies were included if they reported return-to-play data or postsurgical rehabilitation protocols. Results: A total of 62 studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 3451 knees in 3355 patients. Concomitant procedures were included in 30 of these studies (48.4%). The most commonly cited rehabilitation protocols included weightbearing restrictions and ROM guidelines in 100% and 90% of studies, respectively. ROM was most commonly initiated within the first postoperative week, with approximately half of studies utilizing continuous passive motion. Progression to weightbearing as tolerated was reported in 60 studies, most commonly at 6 weeks (range, immediately postoperatively to up to 1 year). Of the 62 studies, 37 (59.7%) included an expected timeline for either return to play or return to full activity, most commonly at 6 months (range, 4 months to 1 year). Overall, 13 studies (21.0%) included either objective or subjective criteria to determine return to activity within their rehabilitation protocol. Conclusion: There is significant heterogeneity for postoperative rehabilitation guidelines and the return-to-play protocol after OCA of the knee in the literature, as nearly half of the included studies reported use of concomitant procedures. However, current protocols appear to be predominantly time-based without objective criteria or functional assessment. Therefore, the authors recommend the development of objective criteria for patient rehabilitation and return-to-play protocols after OCA of the knee. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The application of continuous passive motion (CPM) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) was popularized in the 1990s, but advancements in the understanding of ACLR rehabilitation have made the application of CPM controversial. Many sports medicine fellowship–trained surgeons report using CPM machines postoperatively. Purpose: To determine the efficacy of CPM use for recovery after ACLR with respect to knee range of motion (ROM), knee swelling, postoperative pain, and postoperative complications. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index of Nursing, and Allied Health Literature databases were searched from inception to January 1, 2020, for studies with evidence levels 1 to 3 on the use of CPM for ACLR rehabilitation. Included studies were those that comparatively evaluated postoperative outcomes after ACLR between at least 2 groups of patients, with 1 having received CPM rehabilitation and the other not having received CPM. Results: A total of 12 studies from 1989 to 2019 met the inclusion criteria. These studies included 808 patients who underwent ACLR. There was no evidence of CPM improving knee stability, final postoperative ROM, or subjective pain scores. Additionally, CPM did not lead to decreased muscle atrophy or improved International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Regarding pain medication intake during postoperative hospitalization, 2 studies found that the CPM group used less pain medication, 1 study found the CPM group used more pain medication, and 1 study found that there was no difference between the 2 groups. Complications varied widely, with 2 of 12 studies reporting complications that required a return to the operating room. Conclusion: A clinical benefit of postoperative CPM use after ACLR was not identified in this review. While our systematic review identified a number of studies that suggest CPM use may be associated with lower usage of pain medication in hospitalized patients, this cannot be confirmed without further investigation with standardized CPM protocols and larger sample sizes. Routine CPM use after ACLR was not supported by this systematic review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]