coleman methodology score
Recently Published Documents

AbstractWe reviewed the literature regarding utility of biologic augmentation in meniscal repair. We hypothesized that the addition of biologic augmentation during meniscal repair improves postoperative knee function and reduces risk of repair failure. PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched. Included studies were clinical studies in humans, published in English, and reported use of biologic augmentation techniques in addition to meniscal repair (including platelet-rich plasma [PRP], fibrin clot, bone marrow stimulation, meniscal wrapping, and bioscaffolds) for treatment of knee meniscal tears. Outcome measures included repair failure, repeat knee arthroscopic surgery, and magnetic resonance imaging), visual analog scale for pain, the International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Lysholm's Knee Scoring Scale, and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Study quality was assessed using the modified Coleman methodology score. Nineteen studies reported repair of 1,092 menisci including six studies that investigated fibrin clot augmentation, five studies that investigated PRP augmentation, three studies that investigated bone marrow stimulation augmentation, two studies that used meniscal wrapping augmentation, and three studies that used other techniques. The level of evidence ranged from I to IV and mean modified Coleman methodology score was 43 (range: 17–69), with higher scores noted in studies completed in recent years. PRP and bone marrow stimulation augmentation appear to decrease risk of failure in patients undergoing isolated meniscal repair but do not improve knee symptom scores. Fibrin clot and trephination augmentation techniques do not have sufficient evidence to support decreased failure risk at this time. Meniscal wrapping augmentation and scaffold implantation augmentation appear to be an attractive option to meniscectomy in complicated tears that are not candidates for repair alone, but further confirmatory studies are needed to support initial data. Evidence supporting augmentation of meniscal repair is limited at this time but suggests that the highest likelihood for effectiveness of augmentation is in the settings of isolated meniscal repair or meniscal repairs that would normally not be amenable to repair.

Background This study aimed to review level I and II therapeutic studies on boxer’s fractures to measure variation in quality among the highest level study designs. Methods We used quantitative measures of study quality to evaluate prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments of boxer’s fractures. A search of PubMed, using terms “boxer’s fracture” and “fifth metacarpal neck fracture” identified 164 articles from 1961 to 2019. From this list, we identified 6 RCTs. Two observers classified each trial according to 3 systems: the Oxford Levels of Evidence, the modified Coleman Methodology Score, and the revised Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) score. Results The 2 reviewers were consistent in their use of the Oxford Levels of Evidence (100% agreement). The differences between the average modified Coleman Methodology scores and the average CONSORT scores assigned by the 2 observers were not significant (46.2 vs 45.3 points, κ = 0) and (13.7 vs 14.3 points, κ = 0.33), respectively. Both observers rated all the studies as level I and as unsatisfactory according to the Coleman Methodology Score (100% and 100%), and less than half as unsatisfactory according to the CONSORT score (50% and 17%). Areas of deficiency included randomization, blinding, group comparability, clinical effect measurements, and allocation into treatment arms. Conclusion Classifying orthopedic scientific reports according to the levels of evidence implies a degree of respect for level I and II studies that may not always be merited. Our data suggest that the quality of higher level studies, namely those involving boxer’s fractures, varies and may often be unsatisfactory when critically evaluated.

Background: The impact of preoperative opioid use on outcomes after shoulder surgery is unknown. Purpose/Hypothesis: To examine the role of preoperative opioid use on outcomes in patients after shoulder surgery. We hypothesized that preoperative opioid use in shoulder surgery will result in increased postoperative pain and functional deficits when compared with nonuse. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Included were all English-language studies comparing clinical outcomes of shoulder surgery in patients who used opioids preoperatively (opioid group) as well as patients who did not (nonopioid group) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Outcomes included range of motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant-Murley score, and visual analog scale for pain. Study quality was evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score and the MINORS score (Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies). Results: Included were 5 studies (level 2, n = 1; level 3, n = 4): Two studies were on total shoulder arthroplasty, 2 on reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, 1 on both, and 1 on arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. There were 827 patients overall: 290 in the opioid group (age, 63.2 ± 4.0 years [mean ± SD]; follow-up, 38.9 ± 7.5 months) and 537 in the nonopioid group (age, 66.0 ± 4.7 years; follow-up, 39.5 ± 8.1 months). The opioid group demonstrated significantly worse pre- and postoperative visual analog scale and Constant-Murley score pain scores as compared with the nonopioid group. Mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were significantly lower in the opioid group at pre- and postoperative time points as compared with the nonopioid group ( P < .05 for all). However, both groups experienced similar improvement in outcomes pre- to postoperatively. One study showed that the opioid group consumed significantly more opioids postoperatively than the nonopioid group and for a longer duration ( P < .05). The overall mean Modified Coleman Methodology Score and MINORS score were 64.2 ± 14 and 15.8 ± 1.0, respectively. Conclusion: Opioid use prior to various shoulder surgical procedures negatively affected postoperative pain and functionality. Although the opioid group showed significantly worse scores postoperatively, the groups experienced similar improvements.

Abstract Background The medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) works in association with the medial patellotibial ligament (MPTL) and the medial patellomeniscal ligament (MPML) to impart stability to the patellofemoral joint. The anatomy and biomechanical characteristics of the MPFL have been well described but little is known about the MPTL and MPML. Several reconstruction procedures of the MPFL with semitendinosus, gracilis, patellar and quadriceps tendons, allografts and synthetic grafts have been described. No clear superiority of one surgical technique over another is evident. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were articles that reported clinical outcomes of combined reconstruction of MPTL and MPFL. The methodological quality of the articles was determined using the modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS). Results Nine articles were included, reporting the clinical outcomes of 197 operated knees. The surgical procedures described include hamstrings grafting and transfer of the medial patellar and quadriceps tendons with or without bony procedures to reconstruct the MPTL in association with the MPFL. Overall, good and excellent outcomes were achieved. The median CMS is 70.6 ± 14.4 (range 38 to 84). Conclusion Different techniques are reported, and outcomes are good with low rates of recurrence. The quality of the articles is variable, ranging from low to high. Appropriately powered randomized controlled trials are needed to better understand what the adequate indications for surgery in patients with patellar instability and clinical outcomes are. Combined reconstruction of MPFL and MPTL leads to favourable clinical outcomes, supporting its role as a valid surgical procedure for patellar stabilization.

Background: During hip endoscopy, the iliotibial band (ITB) can be split or preserved to access the peritrochanteric workspace. To our knowledge, no comparative studies have been performed to analyze patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and surgical failure rates (gluteus medius retear and/or revision surgery rates) for ITB-sparing versus ITB-splitting approaches in endoscopic gluteus medius repairs. Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate PROs and failure rates of patients undergoing ITB-sparing versus ITB-splitting repairs of the gluteus medius. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was performed by following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) guidelines and using the PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase databases. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the modified Coleman Methodology Score. Level 1-4 studies were evaluated for endoscopic abductor repair techniques on all types of gluteus medius tears. Given the small number of studies and varying population sizes, all quantitative data were adjusted for study population size. Results: A total of 13 studies met our inclusion criteria, while more granular data, including ITB approach, were available for 8 studies. Because of the paucity of literature on the subject, all included studies were of lower quality per the modified Coleman Methodology Score. The visual analog scale for pain, the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and the surgical failure rates were compared between approaches. Patients who underwent ITB splitting had a significantly greater change in mHHS (45.5 ± 4.6 vs 27.3 ± 6.5; P < .001) and lower surgical failure rates (3.67 ± 2.33 vs 4.75 ± 2.54; P = .04). There was no significant difference in change in visual analog scale for splitting versus sparing (4.26 ± 0.41 vs 4.39 ± 0.14; P = .96). The results may have been biased by between-group differences, such as patients who undergo ITB sparing being significantly younger. Conclusion: Endoscopic gluteus medius repair is a reliable procedure to improve pain and function in appropriately selected patients. This study highlighted the lack of high-quality literature available regarding ITB approach. However, the evidence to date has suggested that ITB approach may influence hip-specific PROs. Splitting the ITB during abductor repair may be associated with a greater improvement in mHHS and lower surgical failure rates. Further prospective comparative studies are warranted to evaluate the effect of ITB approach.

Background: Many surgical options for treating patellofemoral (PF) cartilage lesions are available but with limited evidence comparing their results. Purpose: To determine and compare outcomes of PF cartilage restoration techniques. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed by utilizing the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies in the English language, patient-reported outcomes after PF cartilage restoration surgery, and >12 months’ follow-up. Quality assessment was performed with the Coleman Methodology Score. Techniques were grouped as osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCA), osteochondral autograft transfer (OAT), chondrocyte cell–based therapy, bone marrow–based therapy, and scaffolds. Results: A total of 59 articles were included. The mean Coleman Methodology Score was 71.8. There were 1937 lesions (1077 patellar, 390 trochlear, and 172 bipolar; 298 unspecified). The frequency of the procedures was as follows, in descending order: chondrocyte cell–based therapy (65.7%), bone marrow–based therapy (17.2%), OAT (8%), OCA (6.6%), and scaffolds (2.2%). When compared with the overall pooled lesion size (3.9 cm2; 95% CI, 3.5-4.3 cm2), scaffold (2.2 cm2; 95% CI, 1.8-2.5 cm2) and OAT (1.5 cm2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9 cm2) lesions were smaller ( P < .001), while chondrocyte cell–based therapy lesions were larger (4.7 cm2; 95% CI, 4.1-5.3 cm2; P = .039). Overall, the instability pool was 11.9%, and the anatomic risk factors pool was 32.1%. Statistically significant improvement was observed on at least 1 patient-reported outcome in chondrocyte cell–based therapy (83%), OAT (78%), OCA (71%), bone marrow–based therapy (64%), and scaffolds (50%). There were no significant differences between any group and the overall pooled change in International Knee Documentation Committee score (30.2; 95% CI, 27.4-32.9) and Lysholm score (25.2; 95% CI, 16.9-33.5). There were no significant differences between any group and the overall pooled rate in minor complication rate (7.6%; 95% CI, 4.7%-11.9%) and major complication rate (8.3%; 95% CI, 5.7%-12.0%); however, OCA had a significantly greater failure rate (22.7%; 95% CI, 14.6%-33.4%) as compared with the overall rate (6.8%; 95% CI, 4.7%-9.5%). Conclusion: PF cartilage restoration leads to improved clinical outcomes, with low rates of minor and major complications. There was no difference among techniques; however, failures were higher with OCA.

The aim of this study is to review all the published clinical trials on autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs) in the repair of cartilage lesions of the knee. We performed a comprehensive search in three electronic databases: PubMed, Medline via Ovid, and Web of Science. A systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines of PRISMA protocol and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The modified Coleman methodology score was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the effect size for Pain and function change after receiving BM-MSCs. Thirty-three studies—including 724 patients of mean age 44.2 years—were eligible. 50.7% of the included patients received cultured BM-MSCs for knee cartilage repair. There was improvement in the MINORS quality score over time with a positive correlation with the publication year. Meta-analysis indicated better improvement and statistical significance in the Visual Analog Scale for Pain, IKDC Function, Tegner Activity Scale, and Lysholm Knee Score after administration of noncultured BM-MSCs when compared to evaluation before the treatment. Meanwhile, there was a clear methodological defect in most studies with an average modified Coleman methodology score (MCMS) of 55. BM-MSCs revealed a clinically relevant improvement in pain, function, and histological regeneration.