Search

There is conjecture on the optimal timing to administer bisphosphonate therapy following operative fixation of low-trauma hip fractures. Factors include recommendations for early opportunistic commencement of osteoporosis treatment, and clinician concern regarding the effect of bisphosphonates on fracture healing. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if early administration of bisphosphonate therapy within the first month post-operatively following proximal femur fracture fixation is associated with delay in fracture healing or rates of delayed or non-union.We included randomized controlled trials examining fracture healing and union rates in adults with proximal femoral fractures undergoing osteosynthesis fixation methods and administered bisphosphonates within 1 month of operation with a control group. Data were pooled in meta-analyses where possible. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the GRADE approach were used to assess validity.For the outcome of time to fracture union, meta-analysis of three studies (n = 233) found evidence for earlier average time to union for patients receiving early bisphosphonate intervention (MD = -1.06 weeks, 95% CI -2.01--0.12, IWe provide low-level evidence that there is no reduction in time to healing or delay in bony union for patients receiving bisphosphonates within 1 month of proximal femur fixation.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim to answer whether operative laparoscopy is an effective treatment in a woman with demonstrated endometriosis compared with alternative treatments. Moreover, we aimed to assess the risks of operative laparoscopy compared with those of alternatives. In addition, we aimed to systematically review the literature on the impact of patient preference on decision making around surgery.We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, CINAHL, Scopus, OpenGrey, and Web of Science from inception through May 2019. In addition, a manual search of reference lists of relevant studies was conducted.Published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language describing a comparison between surgery and any other intervention were included, with particular reference to timing and its impact on pain and fertility. Studies reporting on keywords including, but not limited to, endometriosis, laparoscopy, pelvic pain, and infertility were included. In the anticipated absence of RCTs on patient preference, all original research on this topic was considered eligible.In total, 1990 studies were reviewed. Twelve studies were identified as being eligible for inclusion to assess outcomes of pain (n = 6), fertility (n = 7), quality of life (n = 1), and disease progression (n = 3). Seven studies of interest were identified to evaluate patient preferences. There is evidence that operative laparoscopy may improve overall pain levels at 6 months compared with diagnostic laparoscopy (risk ratio [RR], 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-4.34; p.001; 2 RCTs, 102 participants; low-quality evidence). Because the quality of the evidence was very low, it is uncertain if operative laparoscopy improves live birth rates. Operative laparoscopy probably yields little or no difference regarding clinical pregnancy rates compared with diagnostic laparoscopy (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.99-1.92; p = .06; 4 RCTs, 624 participants; moderate-quality evidence). It is uncertain if operative laparoscopy yields a difference in adverse outcomes when compared with diagnostic laparoscopy (RR, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.84-4.65; p = .12; 5 RCTs, 554 participants; very-low-quality evidence). No studies reported on the progression of endometriosis to a symptomatic state or progression of extent of disease in terms of volume of lesions and locations in asymptomatic women with endometriosis. We found no studies that reported on the timing of surgery. No quantitative or qualitative studies specifically aimed at elucidating the factors informing a woman's choice for surgery were identified.Operative laparoscopy may improve overall pain levels but may have little or no difference with respect to fertility-related or adverse outcomes when compared with diagnostic laparoscopy. Additional high-quality RCTs, including comparing surgery to medical management, are needed, and these should report adverse events as an outcome. Studies on patient preference in surgical decision making are needed (International Prospective Register of Systematic Review registration number: CRD42019135167).

Background Prolonged length of stay (LOS) after elective total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty is often associated with worse patient outcomes. Social support through room-sharing has been identified as a factor that may reduce LOS in a hospital setting, but has not yet been examined in an orthopedic population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of single- vs shared-room accommodation after elective TKA or THA on hospital LOS. Method A retrospective study was conducted using data from hospital medical records at our institution. Patients receiving unilateral, elective THA or TKA over a 2-year period were eligible. Patients were allocated to either a single room or four-bed shared room. The primary outcome was LOS; secondary outcomes included complications, discharge destination, and return to operating theater. Results One hundred eighty-five patients (70 THA, 115 TKA; mean age 65.74 ± 10.38, 59% female) were included, of whom 82 were allocated to a single room and 103 to a shared room. There was no statistically significant difference in LOS between the 2 groups (5.18 ± 2.21 days [single] vs 4.88 ± 2.12 days [shared]; mean difference −0.29 [95% CI −0.92-0.33], P = .36). Analysis modeling for multiple confounders found no association among room allocation, LOS, and discharge destination. However, more patients in single rooms required discharge to rehabilitation (27% vs 9%) and return to theater (7% vs 1%). Conclusions Room allocation did not correlate with a difference in LOS in patients undergoing elective THA or TKA.