Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose There are a number of developments in intra-articular therapies that have been determined to be differentiating factors within the classes of treatments. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intra-articular treatments of primary knee osteoarthritis in the short term (3 months follow-up), using a network meta-analysis design, while taking within-class differentiating factors into consideration. Methods A literature search of MEDLINE (through OVID), EMBASE (through OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for all trials comparing intra-articular therapies was conducted on November 12, 2018. The treatments assessed were high molecular weight and low molecular weight hyaluronic acid injections, extended-release corticosteroids, standard-release corticosteroids, platelet-rich plasma, and saline. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted for each outcome. Results Sixty-four articles (9710 patients) met the inclusion criteria. High molecular weight hyaluronic acid (− 0.53, 95% CI − 0.81 to − 0.25) and PRP (− 0.79, 95% CI − 1.32 to − 0.26) were the only treatments with a confidence interval that lay completely above the MID threshold; however, PRP results varied within sensitivity analyses. For the function analysis, high molecular weight hyaluronic acid (SMD − 0.76, 95% CI − 1.30 to − 0.22) was the only treatment with a confidence interval entirely above the MID. Extended-release corticosteroid demonstrated a possible benefit in functional improvement (SMD − 0.98, 95% CI − 1.79 to − 0.17) compared to that of standard-release corticosteroid (SMD − 0.14, 95% CI − 0.72 to 0.44). Conclusion High molecular weight HA was the only treatment to surpass the MID for both pain and function outcomes. Extended-release corticosteroids may provide additional clinical benefit over standard-release corticosteroids. Platelet-rich plasma demonstrated possibly beneficial results; however, wide confidence intervals and sensitivity analyses made the conclusions of efficacy uncertain. Level of evidence Level 1. Systematic review of level 1 evidence.

Background: For patients with chronic, non-cancer pain, traditional pain-relieving medications include opioids, which have shown benefits but are associated with increased risks of addiction and adverse effects. Medical cannabis has emerged as a treatment alternative for managing these patients and there has been a rise in the number of randomized clinical trials in recent years; therefore, a systematic review of the evidence was warranted. Objective: To analyze the evidence surrounding the benefits and harms of medical cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases. Eligibility criteria: English language randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain. Data extraction and synthesis: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All stages were conducted independently by a team of 6 reviewers. Data were pooled through meta-analysis with different durations of treatment (2 weeks, 2 months, 6 months) and stratified by route of administration (smoked, oromucosal, oral), conditions, and type of cannabinoids. Main outcomes and measures: Patient-reported pain and adverse events (AEs). Results: Thirty-six trials (4006 participants) were included, examining smoked cannabis (4 trials), oromucosal cannabis sprays (14 trials), and oral cannabinoids (18 trials). Compared with placebo, cannabinoids showed a significant reduction in pain which was greatest with treatment duration of 2 to 8 weeks (weighted mean difference on a 0-10 pain visual analogue scale −0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.96 to −0.40, I2 = 8%, P < .00001; n = 16 trials). When stratified by route of administration, pain condition, and type of cannabinoids, oral cannabinoids had a larger reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to oromucosal and smoked formulations but the difference was not significant (P[interaction] > .05 in all the 3 durations of treatment); cannabinoids had a smaller reduction in pain due to multiple sclerosis compared with placebo relative to other neuropathic pain (P[interaction] = .05) within 2 weeks and the difference was not significant relative to pain due to rheumatic arthritis; nabilone had a greater reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to other types of cannabinoids longer than 2 weeks of treatment but the difference was not significant (P[interaction] > .05). Serious AEs were rare, and similar across the cannabinoid (74 out of 2176, 3.4%) and placebo groups (53 out of 1640, 3.2%). There was an increased risk of non-serious AEs with cannabinoids compared with placebo. Conclusions: There was moderate evidence to support cannabinoids in treating chronic, non-cancer pain at 2 weeks. Similar results were observed at later time points, but the confidence in effect is low. There is little evidence that cannabinoids increase the risk of experiencing serious AEs, although non-serious AEs may be common in the short-term period following use.

Carbon-fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK) has been successfully used in orthopedic implants. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the properties, technical data, and safety of CFR-PEEK biomaterial and to evaluate its potential for new innovation in the design of articulating medical devices. A comprehensive search in PubMed and EMBASE was conducted to identify articles relevant to the outcomes of CFR-PEEK orthopedic implants. The search was also expanded by reviewing the reference sections of selected papers and references and benchmark reports provided by content experts. A total of 23 articles were included in this review. There is limited literature available assessing the performance of CFR-PEEK, specifically as an implant material for arthroplasty systems. Nevertheless, available studies strongly support CFR-PEEK as a promising and suitable material for orthopedic implants because of its biocompatibility, material characteristics, and mechanical durability. Future studies should continue to investigate CFR-PEEK's potential benefits.

Purpose Intra-articular injections of corticosteroid (CS) and hyaluronic acid (HA) have individually demonstrated efficacy for knee osteoarthritis (OA); however, both treatments are limited by the trajectory of symptom relief. The combination of CS and HA in the management of knee OA may provide improved symptomatic relief for patients who are candidates for intra-articular therapies. Methods Electronic databases Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were used to identify relevant publications. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated intra-articular injections of combined CS and HA in comparison to HA alone were included. Outcomes eligible for meta-analysis were WOMAC pain, WOMAC total, OMERACT-OARSI responder rate, and treatment-related adverse events. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated for continuous outcomes using an inverse variance method and a random-effects model. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes using the Mantel–Haenszel method and a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Results Eight trials ( n  = 751 patients) were included. Reduction in WOMAC pain scores at 2–4 weeks favoured the combined CS and HA group compared to HA alone [SMD 0.60, 95% CI (0.23, 0.97); p  = 0.002, I 2  = 75%]. Longer term improvements at 24–26 and 52 weeks WOMAC pain scores also favoured the combined CS and HA group {[SMD 0.25, 95% CI (0.09, 0.41); p  = 0.002, I 2  = 0%] and [SMD 0.39, 95% CI (0.01, 0.77); p  = 0.05, I 2  = 0%]} compared to HA alone, respectively. There were no significant differences in WOMAC total scores, OMERACT-OARSI responder rate, or treatment-related adverse events. Conclusion Combined intra-articular injections of CS and HA led to reductions in pain at 2–4, 24–26 and 52 weeks compared to HA injections alone. Level of evidence Level II—meta-analysis.

The treatment of chronic, non-cancer musculoskeletal pain has become a topic growing interest as it is believed to be one of the reasons for the current opioid epidemic. The medicinal use of cannabis has a long history as a number of active compounds in cannabis have been shown to interact with the body’s endocannabinoid system to reduce pain. This position paper provides a history on the evolution of cannabis, the science behind its therapeutic effects, and review of the evidence and current guideline recommendations on its use as a treatment for patients with chronic, non-cancer musculoskeletal pain. Results from systematic reviews have demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in chronic pain conditions with cannabinoids, compared with placebo, although the effects might be considered small and did not reach the minimally important difference. More adverse events were reported in the cannabinoid group than in the placebo group with longer than 2 weeks of treatment. There is a lack of evidence on dependence. With changes to policies, patients’ perception has changed to be more positive toward the use of medical cannabis. Current recommendations from North America, Latin America, Europe, Australia and Iran support the use of medical cannabis for chronic, non-cancer pain. Based on the current evidence, it is our position that cannabinoids may be considered as an adjunctive therapy after recommended first- and second-line therapies have failed to provide sufficient efficacy or tolerability. Patients should consider the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects of taking cannabis for chronic pain, and comprehensively consider their own values and preferences, as well as cost-effectiveness factors, based on the information provided by their physician.

PurposeWe sought to systematically assess and summarize the available literature on outcomes following coccygectomy for refractory coccygodynia.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data concerning patient demographics, validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for pain relief, disability outcomes, complications, and reoperation rates were extracted and analyzed.ResultsA total of 21 studies (18 retrospective and 3 prospective) were included in the quantitative analysis. A total of 826 patients (females = 75%) received coccygectomy (720 total and 106 partial) for refractory coccygodynia. Trauma was reported as the most common etiology of coccygodynia (56%; n = 375), followed by idiopathic causes (33%; n = 221). The pooled mean difference (MD) in pain scores from baseline on a 0–10 scale was 5.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.35 to 6.86) at a 6–12 month follow-up (FU); 5.02 (95% CI: 3.47 to 6.57) at > 12–36 months FU; and 5.41 (95% CI: 4.33 to 6.48) at > 36 months FU. The MCID threshold for pain relief was surpassed at each follow-up. Oswestry Disability Index scores significantly improved postoperatively, with a pooled MD from baseline of − 23.49 (95% CI: − 31.51 to − 15.46), surpassing the MCID threshold. The pooled incidence of complications following coccygectomy was 8% (95% CI: 5% to 12%), the most frequent of which were surgical site infections and wound dehiscence. The pooled incidence of reoperations was 3% (95% CI: 1% to 5%).ConclusionCoccygectomy represents a viable treatment option in patients with refractory coccygodynia.

Introduction: Chronic knee pain is a common musculoskeletal condition, which usually leads to decreased quality of life and a substantial financial burden. Various non-surgical treatments have been developed to relieve pain, restore function and delay surgical intervention. Research on the benefits of medical cannabis (MC) is emerging supporting its use for chronic pain conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MC compared to current non-surgical therapies for chronic knee pain conditions. Methods: We conducted a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian, single payer perspective and compared various MC therapies (oils, soft gels and dried flowers at different daily doses) to bracing, glucosamine, pharmaceutical-grade chondroitin oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids. We estimated the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained with each treatment over 1 year and calculated incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) using both the mean and median estimates for costs and utilities gained across the range of reported values. The final ICURs were compared to willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $66 714, $133 428 and $200 141 Canadian dollars (CAD) per QALY gained. Results: Regardless of the estimates used (mean or median), both MC oils and soft gels at both the minimal and maximal recommended daily doses were cost-effective compared to all current knee pain therapies at the lowest WTP threshold. Dried flowers were only cost-effective up to a certain dosage (0.75 and 1 g/day based on mean and median estimates, respectively), but all dosages were cost-effective when the WTP was increased to $133 428/QALY gained. Conclusion: Our study showed that MC may be a cost-effective strategy in the management of chronic knee pain; however, the evidence on the medical use of cannabis is limited and predominantly low-quality. Additional trials on MC are definitely needed, specifically in patients with chronic knee pain.

Purpose. Medical cannabis for patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) has been the focus of numerous health care recommendations. We conducted a systematic review to identify and summarize the currently available evidence-based recommendations. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, and websites for clinical guidelines and recommendations. We summarized the type of the publications, developers, approach of health care recommendation development, year and country of publication, and conditions that were addressed. We categorized the direction and strength of each recommendation. Results. We identified 12 eligible publications. Publication years ranged from 2007 to 2019; four (33.3%) of them were published in 2018. Canada ranked first for the number of publications (n = 4, 33.3%). Most (n = 11, 92%) of the included recommendations were based on both a systematic review of the best evidence and expert consensus. All the included publications provided a recommendation supporting medical cannabis for CNCP in general and for the specific conditions of neuropathic pain, chronic pain in people living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and chronic abdominal pain, with detailed information sharing and comprehensive consideration of a patient’s own values and preferences. Conclusion. Clinicians can attend to the guidance currently offered, being aware that only weak recommendations are available for medical cannabis in patients with CNCP, as a third- or fourth-line therapy. Detailed discussions with patients regarding the benefits in reducing pain and potential adverse effects are required before its prescription.

Surgical interventions for knee osteoarthritis (OA) have markedly different procedure attributes and may have dramatic differences in patient desirability. A total of 323 patients with knee OA were included in a dual response, choice-based conjoint analysis to identify the relative preference of 9 different procedure attributes. A model was also developed to simulate how patients might respond if presented with the real-world knee OA procedures, based on conservative assumptions regarding their attributes. The “amount of cutting and removal of the existing bone” required for a procedure had the highest preference score, indicating that these patients considered it the most important attribute. More specifically, a procedure that requires the least amount of bone cutting or removal would be expected to be the most preferred surgical alternative. The model also suggested that patients who are younger and report the highest pain levels and greatest functional limitations would be more likely to opt for surgical intervention.

Vascular compromised fractures typically result in a high rate of healing complications, such as avascular necrosis, nonunion, delayed union, and arthritis, which severely affect a patient’s function and quality of life. The purpose of this review was to identify and describe the epidemiology and available treatment options for the most well-known vascular compromised closed fractures. The injuries discussed in detail in this review were scaphoid, lunate, femoral neck, and talar fractures. Current evidence suggests that optimal treatment for vascular compromised fractures is dependent on the degree of fracture displacement and comminution, and the patient’s post-injury functional demands, age, and bone quality. Conservative efforts generally include casting or splinting with a period of immobilization. Surgery is indicated for substantially displaced fractures, patients who require higher functional demands and an earlier return to activity, or if complications occur following nonoperative treatment; however, operative intervention is typically performed for femoral neck fractures regardless of the amount of displacement. Various surgical techniques exist, though internal fixation with screws is a common procedure among these injuries and can be used in combination with other implants, such as plating or Kirschner wires (k-wires), when needed. Severe fracture comminution, poor bone quality, or arthritis can contraindicate the use of screws and more invasive intervention will be required. Bone grafting is done in some cases to enhance vascularity. Salvage procedures exist for patients who develop severe complications, but these will permanently alter the anatomy of the injured area and should be considered a last resort.