Systematic reviews related to this topic

loading
13 References (12 articles) Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

Randomized Controlled Trials for Arthroscopy in Degenerative Knee Disease: Was Conservative Therapy Appropriately Tried Prior to Arthroscopy?

blocked
Authors Liebs TR , Ziebarth K , Berger S
Journal Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association
Year 2018
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 14 Primary studies 14 Primary studies (14 references)

Loading references information
PURPOSE: We aimed to determine if the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated in the most recent meta-analysis on arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis included documented trials of appropriate conservative treatment prior to randomization. METHODS: We selected all RCTs of the most recent meta-analysis by Brignardello-Petersen and recorded for each RCT, if physiotherapy prior to randomization was mandatory. We compared the treatment effect of arthroscopy in studies in which physiotherapy prior to randomization was mandatory versus studies in which it was not. This review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017070091). RESULTS: Of the 13 RCTs in the meta-analysis, there were 2 in which physiotherapy prior to randomization was mandatory. In 1 additional multicenter RCT, prior conservative treatment was mentioned as mandatory in the publication, but not in the protocol. The treatment effects attributed to arthroscopy in terms of short-term pain (P = .0037), short-term function (P = .0309), and long-term function (P = .0012) were larger in studies in which prior physiotherapy was mandatory. CONCLUSIONS: Although the most recent meta-analysis claims that it is based "on patients who do not respond to conservative treatment," physiotherapy was mandatory prior to randomization only in 2 of the 13 studies. As several orthopaedic guidelines recommend that the first line of treatment in patients with degenerative arthritis of the knee should be conservative, for instance with physiotherapy, and the question of performing arthroscopy arises once conservative treatment fails, 11 of the 13 RCTs failed to adhere to these accepted guidelines. Therefore, patient selection in these 11 studies may not represent the typical indications for arthroscopy, where patients have tried conservative management prior to being offered surgery. When comparing studies where prior physiotherapy was mandatory to studies in which it was not mandatory, there were statistically significant effects favoring arthroscopy in terms of pain in the short term, and for function both in the short and the long term. These findings suggest that the treatment effects attributed to arthroscopy were higher when prior physiotherapy was mandatory. Given these findings, the external validity of most of these RCTs, and the resulting "strong recommendation against the use of arthroscopy in nearly all patients with degenerative knee disease," is called into question. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.

Systematic review

Unclassified

The likelihood of total knee arthroplasty following arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

blocked
Authors Winter AR , Collins JE , Katz JN
Journal BMC musculoskeletal disorders
Year 2017
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 20 Primary studies 20 Primary studies (20 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic surgery is a common treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA), particularly for symptomatic meniscal tear. Many patients with knee OA who have arthroscopies go on to have total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Several individual studies have investigated the interval between knee arthroscopy and TKA. Our objective was to summarize published literature on the risk of TKA following knee arthroscopy, the duration between arthroscopy and TKA, and risk factors for TKA following knee arthroscopy. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for English language manuscripts reporting TKA following arthroscopy for knee OA. We identified 511 manuscripts, of which 20 met the inclusion criteria and were used for analysis. We compared the cumulative incidence of TKA following arthroscopy in each study arm, stratifying by type of data source (registry vs. clinical), and whether the study was limited to older patients (≥ 50) or those with more severe radiographic OA. We estimated cumulative incidence of TKA following arthroscopy by dividing the number of TKAs among persons who underwent arthroscopy by the number of persons who underwent arthroscopy. Annual incidence was calculated by dividing cumulative incidence by the mean years of follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, the annual incidence of TKA after arthroscopic surgery for OA was 2.62% (95% CI 1.73-3.51%). We calculated the annual incidence of TKA following arthroscopy in four separate groups defined by data source (registry vs. clinical cohort) and whether the sample was selected for disease progression (either age or OA severity). In unselected registry studies the annual TKA incidence was 1.99% (95% CI 1.03-2.96%), compared to 3.89% (95% CI 0.69-7.09%) in registry studies of older patients. In unselected clinical cohorts the annual incidence was 2.02% (95% CI 0.67-3.36%), while in clinical cohorts with more severe OA the annual incidence was 4.13% (95% CI 1.81-6.44%). The mean and median duration between arthroscopy and TKA (years) were 3.4 and 2.0 years. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and patients considering knee arthroscopy should discuss the likelihood of subsequent TKA as they weigh risks and benefits of surgery. Patients who are older or have more severe OA are at particularly high risk of TKA.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Placebo-Controlled Trials in Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

blocked
Journal Medicine
Year 2016
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 10 Primary studies 10 Primary studies (10 references)

Loading references information
This systematic review was performed to investigate the ethical justification, methodological quality, validity and safety of placebo controls in randomized placebo-controlled surgical trials.Central, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing a surgical procedure to a placebo. "Surgical procedure" was defined as a medical procedure involving an incision with instruments. Placebo was defined as a blinded sham operation involving no change to the structural anatomy and without an expectable physiological response in the target body compartment.Ten randomized placebo-controlled controlled surgical trials were included, all of them published in high-ranking medical journals (mean impact factor: 20.1). Eight of 10 failed to show statistical superiority of the experimental intervention. Serious adverse events did not differ between the groups (rate ratio [RR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-2.06, P = 0.46). None of the trials had a high risk of bias in any domain. The ethical justification for the use of a placebo control remained unclear in 2 trials.Placebo-controlled surgical trials are feasible and provide high-quality data on efficacy of surgical treatments. The surgical placebo entails a considerable risk for study participants. Consequently, a placebo should be used only if justified by the clinical question and by methodological necessity. Based on the current evidence, a pragmatic proposal for the use of placebo controls in future randomized controlled surgical trials is made.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits and harms.

blocked
Journal British journal of sports medicine
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 9 Primary studies 9 Primary studies (9 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To determine benefits and harms of arthroscopic knee surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for middle aged or older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain and physical function. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches for benefits and harms were carried out in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to August 2014. Only studies published in 2000 or later were included for harms. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials assessing benefit of arthroscopic surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for patients with or without radiographic signs of osteoarthritis were included. For harms, cohort studies, register based studies, and case series were also allowed. RESULTS: The search identified nine trials assessing the benefits of knee arthroscopic surgery in middle aged and older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease. The main analysis, combining the primary endpoints of the individual trials from three to 24 months postoperatively, showed a small difference in favour of interventions including arthroscopic surgery compared with control treatments for pain (effect size 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.26). This difference corresponds to a benefit of 2.4 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 4.3) mm on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale. When analysed over time of follow-up, interventions including arthroscopy showed a small benefit of 3-5 mm for pain at three and six months but not later up to 24 months. No significant benefit on physical function was found (effect size 0.09, -0.05 to 0.24). Nine studies reporting on harms were identified. Harms included symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (4.13 (95% confidence interval 1.78 to 9.60) events per 1000 procedures), pulmonary embolism, infection, and death. CONCLUSIONS: The small inconsequential benefit seen from interventions that include arthroscopy for the degenerative knee is limited in time and absent at one to two years after surgery. Knee arthroscopy is associated with harms. Taken together, these findings do not support the practise of arthroscopic surgery for middle aged or older patients with knee pain with or without signs of osteoarthritis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014009145.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits and harms.

Journal BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 9 Primary studies 9 Primary studies (9 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To determine benefits and harms of arthroscopic knee surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for middle aged or older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain and physical function. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches for benefits and harms were carried out in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to August 2014. Only studies published in 2000 or later were included for harms. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials assessing benefit of arthroscopic surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for patients with or without radiographic signs of osteoarthritis were included. For harms, cohort studies, register based studies, and case series were also allowed. RESULTS: The search identified nine trials assessing the benefits of knee arthroscopic surgery in middle aged and older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease. The main analysis, combining the primary endpoints of the individual trials from three to 24 months postoperatively, showed a small difference in favour of interventions including arthroscopic surgery compared with control treatments for pain (effect size 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.26). This difference corresponds to a benefit of 2.4 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 4.3) mm on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale. When analysed over time of follow-up, interventions including arthroscopy showed a small benefit of 3-5 mm for pain at three and six months but not later up to 24 months. No significant benefit on physical function was found (effect size 0.09, -0.05 to 0.24). Nine studies reporting on harms were identified. Harms included symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (4.13 (95% confidence interval 1.78 to 9.60) events per 1000 procedures), pulmonary embolism, infection, and death. CONCLUSIONS: The small inconsequential benefit seen from interventions that include arthroscopy for the degenerative knee is limited in time and absent at one to two years after surgery. Knee arthroscopy is associated with harms. Taken together, these findings do not support the practise of arthroscopic surgery for middle aged or older patients with knee pain with or without signs of osteoarthritis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014009145.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Arthroscopy in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review of the literature.

blocked
Authors Barlow T , Downham C , Griffin D
Journal Acta orthopaedica Belgica
Year 2015
Links Pubmed

This article includes 5 Primary studies 5 Primary studies (5 references)

Loading references information
Knee arthroscopy has historically been a common treatment for knee osteoarthritis. A Cochrane review of the literature up to 2006 has resulted in guidance that arthroscopy is not effective in knee osteoarthritis. It cited that deficiencies in the evidence base prevented widespread acceptance of the recommendations. The aim of this review is to update the evidence base for the efficacy of arthroscopy in knee osteoarthritis. The authors searched CINHAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials that compared arthroscopic surgery in knee osteoarthritis with a control group (e.g. lavage, best medical care). The primary outcome measure was patient reported functional outcome. The study methodology was registered on Prospero, a systematic review register: Registration number CRD42012002891. Five randomised controlled trials included 516 patients, almost double the 271 episodes contained in previous reviews. Two high quality studies, according to the Jadad classification, published since the Cochrane review, addressed many of the methodological flaws criticised in previous reviews. However, certain subgroup analyses (e.g. patients with meniscal tears and mechanical symptoms) are still underpowered.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Placebo effects in trials evaluating 12 selected minimally invasive interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

blocked
Journal BMJ open
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 21 Primary studies 21 Primary studies (21 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the impact of placebo effects on outcome in trials of selected minimally invasive procedures and to assess reported adverse events in both trial arms. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane library to identify systematic reviews of musculoskeletal, neurological and cardiac conditions published between January 2009 and January 2014 comparing selected minimally invasive with placebo (sham) procedures. We searched MEDLINE for additional randomised controlled trials published between January 2000 and January 2014. DATA SYNTHESIS: Effect sizes (ES) in the active and placebo arms in the trials' primary and pooled secondary end points were calculated. Linear regression was used to analyse the association between end points in the active and sham groups. Reported adverse events in both trial arms were registered. RESULTS: We included 21 trials involving 2519 adult participants. For primary end points, there was a large clinical effect (ES≥0.8) after active treatment in 12 trials and after sham procedures in 11 trials. For secondary end points, 7 and 5 trials showed a large clinical effect. Three trials showed a moderate difference in ES between active treatment and sham on primary end points (ES ≥0.5) but no trials reported a large difference. No trials showed large or moderate differences in ES on pooled secondary end points. Regression analysis of end points in active treatment and sham arms estimated an R(2) of 0.78 for primary and 0.84 for secondary end points. Adverse events after sham were in most cases minor and of short duration. CONCLUSIONS: The generally small differences in ES between active treatment and sham suggest that non-specific mechanisms, including placebo, are major predictors of the observed effects. Adverse events related to sham procedures were mainly minor and short-lived. Ethical arguments frequently raised against sham-controlled trials were generally not substantiated.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Arthroscopic Debridement of the Knee: An Evidence Update.

blocked
Journal Ontario health technology assessment series
Year 2014
Links Pubmed PubMed Central

This article includes 10 Primary studies 10 Primary studies (10 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Patients with knee pain as a result of osteoarthritis or degenerative meniscal injury may seek treatment through arthroscopic surgery. How effective arthroscopic debridement with or without meniscectomy is for relieving pain and improving patients' functional outcomes is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To conduct an evidence update of an evidence-based analysis (EBA) conducted in 2005 to determine if arthroscopic debridement for osteoarthritis of the knee or for meniscal injury from degenerative causes improve patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, and all EBM databases, for studies published from January 1, 2005, to February 4, 2014. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted, limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of arthroscopic debridement with or without meniscectomy. Quality assessment of the body of literature was conducted using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: A total of 8 RCTs were identified, 2 from the original EBA plus 6 that were published since that time. The studies included patients with a range of indications for treatment and severity of osteoarthritis. Moderate-quality evidence showed no statistically significant difference in pain or functional status between patients who received arthroscopic treatment versus placebo (e.g., sham surgery). Low-quality evidence showed no statistically significant difference in pain or functional status between patients who received arthroscopic treatment versus usual care (e.g., physical therapy). LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity across the study populations, interventions, and reported measures limited the ability to calculate a summary effect estimate; however, all studies demonstrated consistency in their findings. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence does not show the superiority of arthroscopic debridement with or without meniscectomy in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or with meniscal injury from degenerative causes.

Systematic review

Unclassified

The effects of arthroscopic joint debridement in the knee osteoarthritis: results of a meta-analysis.

Authors Spahn G , Hofmann GO , Klinger HM
Journal Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 30 Primary studies 30 Primary studies (30 references)

Loading references information
PURPOSE: Knee osteoarthritis is one of the most common orthopaedic diseases. Therapeutic options for this disease include conservative treatments and arthroscopic debridement and partial or complete replacement. This meta-analysis aimed to collect and analyse the available information on the effects of arthroscopic joint debridement related to the clinical outcomes, the required conversion to replacement and the factors for patient selection. METHODS: A search for publications was performed in the PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE medical databases. The primary search resulted in a total of 1,512 citations. The results from 30 papers were included in this study. The extracted dates were listed in a standardised protocol. The statistical evaluation was performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software (V2 Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA). RESULTS: No randomised study that compared conservative and arthroscopic treatments for knee osteoarthritis was found. Most studies reported middle-term results after arthroscopic operations. The results of these studies showed excellent or good outcomes in more than 60 % of all patients. These results were correlated with a significant increase in the knee scores from baseline to follow-up; the standardised difference in means was 2.3 (CI 95 % 1.5-3.0, p < 0.001). The required conversion rate to replacement increased as the follow-up interval increased. The rates were as follows: 1 year-6.1 % (CI 95 %, 2.1-16.6 %), 2 years-16.8 % (CI 95 %, 10.2-26.3 %), 3 years-21.7 % (CI 95 %, 15.5-29.1 %) and 4 years-34.1 % (CI 95 %, 22.8-47.6 %). The mean survival time was 42.7 (CI 95 %, 14.5-71.1) months. Numerous factors influenced the outcome, including the radiological stage of the osteoarthritis and individual patient factors (e.g. time of history of osteoarthritis, weight and smoking). The local knee findings, such as axial dysalignment, missing effusion and massive crepitus, were also correlated with patient outcome. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic joint debridement is a potential and sufficient treatment for knee osteoarthritis in a middle-term time interval. This procedure results in an excellent or good outcome in approximately 60 % of patients in approximately 5 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review of studies, Level III.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Joint lavage for osteoarthritis of the knee.

blocked
Journal Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)
Year 2010
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 1 Broad synthesis 7 Broad syntheses (1 reference)

This article includes 7 Primary studies 7 Primary studies (7 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disorder and a leading cause of pain and physical disability. Observational studies suggested a benefit for joint lavage, but recent, sham-controlled trials yielded conflicting results, suggesting joint lavage not to be effective. OBJECTIVES: To compare joint lavage with sham intervention, placebo or non-intervention control in terms of effects on pain, function and safety outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to 3 August 2009, checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if they were randomised or quasi-randomised trials that compared arthroscopic and non-arthroscopic joint lavage with a control intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. We did not apply any language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors extracted data using standardised forms. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials with 567 patients. Three trials examined arthroscopic joint lavage, two non-arthroscopic joint lavage and two tidal irrigation. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting was poor and we identified a moderate to large degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I(2) = 65%). We found little evidence for a benefit of joint lavage in terms of pain relief at three months (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.21), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between joint lavage and control of 0.3 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). Results for improvement in function at three months were similar (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.11), corresponding to a difference in function scores between joint lavage and control of 0.2 cm on a WOMAC disability sub-scale from 0 to 10. For pain, estimates of effect sizes varied to some degree depending on the type of lavage, but this variation was likely to be explained by differences in the credibility of control interventions: trials using sham interventions to closely mimic the process of joint lavage showed a null-effect. Reporting on adverse events and drop out rates was unsatisfactory, and we were unable to draw conclusions for these secondary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Joint lavage does not result in a relevant benefit for patients with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain relief or improvement of function.