Joseph Serino1, Amin Mohamadi2, Sebastian Orman3, Brian McCormick3, Philip Hanna2, Michael J Weaver4, Mitchel B Harris5, Ara Nazarian2, Arvind von Keudell6. 1. Georgetown University School of Medicine, 3900 Reservoir Rd NW, Washington DC 20007, United States. Electronic address: js2256@georgetown.edu. 2. Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, United States. 3. Georgetown University School of Medicine, United States. 4. Harvard Medical School Orthopedic Trauma Initiative, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, United States. 5. Orthopaedic Trauma Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital, United States. 6. Harvard Medical School Orthopedic Trauma Initiative, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extensor mechanism rupture (EMR) of the knee is a rare but potentially debilitating injury that often occurs due to trauma. While a wide variety of surgical treatments have been reported, there is currently no consensus on the most successful treatment method. The timing of post-operative joint mobilization is also critical for successful recovery after EMR repair. Despite the traditional method of complete immobilization for 6 weeks, there is an increasing trend towards early post-operative knee mobilization. The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to compare adverse event rates and function outcomes between repair methods and between post-operative mobilization protocols. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central electronic databases were searched in August 2016 for observational studies involving repair of acute, traumatic EMRs. Data extraction included functional outcomes, adverse events, and additional surgeries. Cohort studies that were used in functional outcome analysis were assessed for risk of bias by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (709 patients) were included for adverse event analysis. There were no significant differences in adverse event or additional surgery rates between EMR repair methods However, early mobilization produced significantly higher adverse event rates (p=0.02) and total event rates (p<0.001) than late mobilization, but the difference in additional surgery rates was not significant (p=0.06). Six studies (85 patients) were included for functional outcome analysis. There were no significant differences in thigh girth atrophy or muscle strength compared to the contralateral leg between patients treated with transosseous drill holes and simple end-to-end sutures. CONCLUSIONS: We performed the first network meta-analysis to date comparing treatment of EMRs. Our results support the current body of knowledge that there is no single superior repair method. Although there is an increasing trend towards early or immediate post-operative knee mobilization, we found that early mobilization is associated with significantly higher adverse event and total event rates compared to fixed immobilization for a minimum of 6 weeks, implicating an increased financial burden and decreased quality of life associated with early post-operative mobilization.
BACKGROUND: Extensor mechanism rupture (EMR) of the knee is a rare but potentially debilitating injury that often occurs due to trauma. While a wide variety of surgical treatments have been reported, there is currently no consensus on the most successful treatment method. The timing of post-operative joint mobilization is also critical for successful recovery after EMR repair. Despite the traditional method of complete immobilization for 6 weeks, there is an increasing trend towards early post-operative knee mobilization. The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to compare adverse event rates and function outcomes between repair methods and between post-operative mobilization protocols. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central electronic databases were searched in August 2016 for observational studies involving repair of acute, traumatic EMRs. Data extraction included functional outcomes, adverse events, and additional surgeries. Cohort studies that were used in functional outcome analysis were assessed for risk of bias by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (709 patients) were included for adverse event analysis. There were no significant differences in adverse event or additional surgery rates between EMR repair methods However, early mobilization produced significantly higher adverse event rates (p=0.02) and total event rates (p<0.001) than late mobilization, but the difference in additional surgery rates was not significant (p=0.06). Six studies (85 patients) were included for functional outcome analysis. There were no significant differences in thigh girth atrophy or muscle strength compared to the contralateral leg between patients treated with transosseous drill holes and simple end-to-end sutures. CONCLUSIONS: We performed the first network meta-analysis to date comparing treatment of EMRs. Our results support the current body of knowledge that there is no single superior repair method. Although there is an increasing trend towards early or immediate post-operative knee mobilization, we found that early mobilization is associated with significantly higher adverse event and total event rates compared to fixed immobilization for a minimum of 6 weeks, implicating an increased financial burden and decreased quality of life associated with early post-operative mobilization.
Authors: Aleksi Reito; Juha Paloneva; Ville M Mattila; Antti P Launonen Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: José Leonardo Rocha de Faria; Murilo Barroso de Matos; Hugo Alexandre de Araújo Barros Cobra; Naasson Cavanellas; Eduardo Branco de Sousa; João Mauricio Barretto; João Matheus Guimarães Journal: Arthrosc Tech Date: 2019-09-19
Authors: Betina B Hinckel; Charles A Baumann; Leandro Ejnisman; Leonardo M Cavinatto; Alexander Martusiewicz; Miho J Tanaka; Marc Tompkins; Seth L Sherman; Jorge A Chahla; Rachel Frank; Guilherme L Yamamoto; James Bicos; Liza Arendt; Donald Fithian; Jack Farr Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev Date: 2020-10-01
Authors: Cristiano De Franco; Vincenzo de Matteo; Marco Lenzi; Ernesto Marano; Enrico Festa; Alessio Bernasconi; Francesco Smeraglia; Giovanni Balato Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Arman T Serebrakian; Brent B Pickrell; David E Varon; Amin Mohamadi; Mark W Grinstaff; Edward K Rodriguez; Ara Nazarian; Eric G Halvorson; Indranil Sinha Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2018-09-24