Dataset Information

Operative Versus Nonoperative Management of Distal Iliotibial Band Syndrome-Where Do We Stand? A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:To systematically review the operative versus nonoperative methods for management of iliotibial band syndrome (ITBS) with comparison of the respective clinical outcomes. Methods:By adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines, 3 databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science) searched from inception to October 2019 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies on humans that reported the outcomes following operative or nonoperative management of ITBS. Excluded were case reports, case series with <5 participants, review articles, non-English articles, and non-peer-reviewed articles. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs were used for quality control. Results:There were 15 eligible studies (9 for operative,6 for nonoperative treatment) examining 179 athletes (mean age 27.3 years, range: 17-53) who received conservative therapy for ITBS and 200 athletes (mean age 30.1 years, range: 14-63) who underwent surgical treatment. Most athletes were runners (65%). The mean follow-up time was significantly longer in studies reporting the outcomes following operative compared with nonoperative ITBS treatment (33.5 vs 2 months, respectively, P < .05). Significant variability in the methods used to assess the clinical outcomes precluded meta-analysis. The most commonly reported (7/9 studies, 77.7%) variable for postoperative evaluation in athletes was the return to sport rate (range: 81%-100%). Significant reduction in pain was consistently (6/6 studies,100%) found among the studies reporting the results of conservative ITBS treatment. The included RCTs were of good (1/5, 20%), fair (2/5, 40%), or poor (2/5, 40%) quality, whereas the average MINORS score was 7.4 (range: 3-13) for observational studies. The level of evidence ranged from Level II (6/15 studies) to IV (9/15 studies). Conclusions:Based on the current literature and at a maximum follow-up time of 6 months, conservative therapy can effectively reduce ITBS symptoms in athletes. Multiple surgical options exist for athletes who do not respond to nonoperative measures, with a reported return to sport rate between 81% and 100%. Level of Evidence:Systematic review of Level II and IV studies.

SUBMITTER: Bolia IK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7451906 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Operative Versus Nonoperative Management of Distal Iliotibial Band Syndrome-Where Do We Stand? A Systematic Review.

Bolia Ioanna K IK Gammons Preston P Scholten Donald Jay DJ Weber Alexander E AE Waterman Brian R BR

Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation 20200610 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>To systematically review the operative versus nonoperative methods for management of iliotibial band syndrome (ITBS) with comparison of the respective clinical outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>By adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines, 3 databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science) searched from inception to October 2019 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies on humans that reported the outcomes following oper ...[more]

PMID: 32875305

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceNo consensus has been reached to date regarding the optimal treatment for distal radius fractures. The international rate of operative treatment has been increasing, despite higher costs and limited functional outcome evidence to support this shift.ObjectivesTo compare functional, clinical, and radiologic outcomes after operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures in adults.Data sourcesThe PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases were searched from inception to June 15, 2019, for studies comparing operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting on the following: acute distal radius fracture with operative treatment (internal or external fixation) vs nonoperative treatment (cast immobilization, splinting, or bracing); patients 18 years or older; and functional outcome. Studies in a language other than English or reporting treatment for refracture were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Effect estimates were pooled using random-effects models and presented as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Data were analyzed in September 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measures included medium-term functional outcome measured with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) and the overall complication rate after operative and nonoperative treatment.ResultsA total of 23 unique studies were included, consisting of 8 RCTs and 15 observational studies, that described 2254 unique patients. Among the studies that presented sex data, 1769 patients were women [80.6%]. Overall weighted mean age was 67 [range, 22-90] years). The RCTs included 656 patients (29.1%); observational studies, 1598 patients (70.9%). The overall pooled effect estimates the showed a significant improvement in medium-term (≤1 year) DASH score after operative treatment compared with nonoperative treatment (MD, -5.22 [95% CI, -8.87 to -1.57]; P = .005; I2 = 84%). No difference in complication rate was observed (RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]; P = .87; I2 = 62%). A significant improvement in grip strength was noted after operative treatment, measured in kilograms (MD, 2.73 [95% CI, 0.15-5.32]; P = .04; I2 = 79%) and as a percentage of the unaffected side (MD, 8.21 [95% CI, 2.26-14.15]; P = .007; I2 = 76%). No improvement in medium-term DASH score was found in the subgroup of studies that only included patients 60 years or older (MD, -0.98 [95% CI, -3.52 to 1.57]; P = .45; I2 = 34%]), compared with a larger improvement in medium-term DASH score after operative treatment in the other studies that included patients 18 years or older (MD, -7.50 [95% CI, -12.40 to -2.60]; P = .003; I2 = 77%); the difference between these subgroups was statically significant (test for subgroup differences, P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceThis meta-analysis suggests that operative treatment of distal radius fractures improves the medium-term DASH score and grip strength compared with nonoperative treatment in adults, with no difference in overall complication rate. The findings suggest that operative treatment might be more effective and have a greater effect on the health and well-being of younger, nonelderly patients.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare re-rupture rate, complication rate, and functional outcome after operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures; to compare re-rupture rate after early and late full weight bearing; to evaluate re-rupture rate after functional rehabilitation with early range of motion; and to compare effect estimates from randomised controlled trials and observational studies.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were last searched on 25 April 2018 for studies comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures.Study selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials and observational studies reporting on comparison of operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures.Data extractionData extraction was performed independently in pairs, by four reviewers, with the use of a predefined data extraction file. Outcomes were pooled using random effects models and presented as risk difference, risk ratio, or mean difference, with 95% confidence interval.Results29 studies were included-10 randomised controlled trials and 19 observational studies. The 10 trials included 944 (6%) patients, and the 19 observational studies included 14?918 (94%) patients. A significant reduction in re-ruptures was seen after operative treatment (2.3%) compared with nonoperative treatment (3.9%) (risk difference 1.6%; risk ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.60; P<0.001; I2=22%). Operative treatment resulted in a significantly higher complication rate than nonoperative treatment (4.9% v 1.6%; risk difference 3.3%; risk ratio 2.76, 1.84 to 4.13; P<0.001; I2=45%). The main difference in complication rate was attributable to the incidence of infection (2.8%) in the operative group. A similar reduction in re-rupture rate in favour of operative treatment was seen after both early and late full weight bearing. No significant difference in re-rupture rate was seen between operative and nonoperative treatment in studies that used accelerated functional rehabilitation with early range of motion (risk ratio 0.60, 0.26 to 1.37; P=0.23; I2=0%). No difference in effect estimates was seen between randomised controlled trials and observational studies.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis shows that operative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures reduces the risk of re-rupture compared with nonoperative treatment. However, re-rupture rates are low and differences between treatment groups are small (risk difference 1.6%). Operative treatment results in a higher risk of other complications (risk difference 3.3%). The final decision on the management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures should be based on patient specific factors and shared decision making. This review emphasises the potential benefits of adding high quality observational studies in meta-analyses for the evaluation of objective outcome measures after surgical treatment.

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of operative compared with nonoperative treatment at initial presentation (no prior fusion) for adult lumbar scoliosis has not, to our knowledge, been evaluated in controlled trials. The goals of this study were to evaluate the effects of operative and nonoperative treatment and to assess the benefits of these treatments to help treating physicians determine whether patients are better managed operatively or nonoperatively.MethodsPatients with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (aged 40 to 80 years, with a coronal Cobb angle measurement of ≥30° and an Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score of ≥20 or Scoliosis Research Society [SRS]-22 score of ≤4.0) from 9 North American centers were enrolled in concurrent randomized or observational cohorts to evaluate operative versus nonoperative treatment. The primary outcomes were differences in the mean change from baseline in the SRS-22 subscore and ODI at 2-year follow-up. For the randomized cohort, the initial sample-size calculation estimated that 41 patients per group (82 total) would provide 80% power with alpha equal to 0.05, anticipating 10% loss to follow-up and 20% nonadherence in the nonoperative arm. However, an interim sample-size calculation estimated that 18 patients per group would be sufficient.ResultsSixty-three patients were enrolled in the randomized cohort: 30 in the operative group and 33 in the nonoperative group. Two hundred and twenty-three patients were enrolled in the observational cohort: 112 in the operative group and 111 in the nonoperative group. The intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized cohort found that, at 2 years of follow-up, outcomes did not differ between the groups. Nonadherence was high in the randomized cohort (64% nonoperative-to-operative crossover). In the as-treated analysis of the randomized cohort, operative treatment was associated with greater improvement at the 2-year follow-up in the SRS-22 subscore (adjusted mean difference, 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.5 to 1.0]) and in the ODI (adjusted mean difference, -16 [95% CI, -22 to -10]) (p < 0.001 for both). Surgery was also superior to nonoperative care in the observational cohort at 2 years after treatment on the basis of SRS-22 subscore and ODI outcomes (p < 0.001). In an overall responder analysis, more operative patients achieved improvement meeting or exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the SRS-22 subscore (85.7% versus 38.7%; p < 0.001) and the ODI (77.4% versus 38.3%; p < 0.001). Thirty-four revision surgeries were performed in 24 (14%) of the operative patients.ConclusionsOn the basis of as-treated and MCID analyses, if a patient with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis is satisfied with current spine-related health, nonoperative treatment is advised, with the understanding that improvement is unlikely. If a patient is not satisfied with current spine health and expects improvement, surgery is preferred.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent literature presents a variety of surgical interventions aimed at modifying the iliotibial band (ITB) at the hip to relieve lateral hip pain (LHP). However, a focus towards the hip abductors as a main driver in LHP has evolved in the last decade, which could influence the indications for isolated ITB surgery. No previous review has been undertaken to evaluate isolated ITB surgery in LHP cases.PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate isolated ITB surgery in LHP patients in relation to pain, snapping, use of non-surgical treatments postoperatively, and repeated surgery.MethodsThe study was reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The study was registered in Prospero (CRD42021216707) prior to initiation. A systematic search of literature on PubMed and Embase as well as bibliography screening on adult patients undergoing isolated ITB surgery with or without additional bursectomies was performed. Due to the lack of reliable data, no meta-analysis was performed.ResultsA total of 21 studies (360 patients) were considered eligible for inclusion. The snapping and non-snapping group consisted of 150 and 210 patients, respectively. The mean follow-up time in the snapping group was 30 months and 19 months in the non-snapping group. Utilizing different surgical techniques, complete pain relief was not achieved in 12% of patients in the snapping group and 36% of the patients in the non-snapping group. In the snapping group, snapping was eliminated in 95% of patients, and five of 150 patients (3%) had repeated surgery. Eight of nine non-snapping studies reported information regarding repeated surgery, in which seven of 205 patients (3%) received repeated surgery.ConclusionITB surgery at the hip remains widely adopted, although only level 4 studies are available, and little information exists on the long-term clinical, as well as patient reported outcomes. Based on the available data, we found indication of a positive short-term outcome in LHP with snapping regarding elimination of snapping, pain reduction, reuse of non-surgical treatment, and repeated surgery. In LHP with no snapping, we found limited evidence supporting ITB surgery based on current literature.

Project description:BackgroundDistal radius fractures are the most frequently encountered fractures in Western societies, typically affecting patients aged 50 years and older. Although this is a common injury, the best treatment for these fractures in older patients is still under debate.ObjectiveThis prospective study aims to compare the outcome of operatively and nonoperatively treated distal radius fractures in the older population. Only patients with distal radius fractures for which equipoise regarding the optimal treatment exists will be included.MethodsThis prospective international multicenter observational cohort study will be designed as a natural experiment. Natural experiments are observational studies in which treatment allocation is determined by factors outside the control of the investigators but also (largely) independent of patient characteristics. Patients aged 65 years and older with an acute distal radius fracture will be considered for inclusion. Treatment allocation (operative vs nonoperative) will be based on the local preferences of the treating hospital either in Switzerland or the Netherlands. Hence, the process governing treatment allocation resembles that of randomization. Patients will be identified after treatment has been initiated. Based on the radiographs and baseline information of the patient, an expert panel of 6 certified trauma surgeons from 2 regions will provide their treatment recommendation. Only patients for whom the experts disagree on treatment recommendations will ultimately be included in the study (ie, for whom there is a clinical equipoise). For these patients, both operative and nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures are viable, and treatment choice is predominantly determined by personal or local preference. The primary outcome will be the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include the Physical Activity Score for the Elderly, the EQ questionnaire, pain, the living situation, range of motion, complications, and radiological outcomes. By including outcomes such as living situation and the Physical Activity Score for the Elderly, which are not relevant for younger cohorts, valuable information to tailor treatment to the needs of the older population can be gained. According to the sample size collection, which was based on the minimal important clinical difference of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation, 92 patients will have to be included, with at least 46 patients in each treatment group.ResultsEnrollment began in July 2023 and is expected to continue until summer 2024. The final follow-up will be 2 years after the last patient is included.ConclusionsAlthough many trials on this topic have previously been published, there remains an ongoing debate regarding the optimal treatment for distal radius fractures in older patients. This observational study, which will use a fairly new methodological study design, will provide further information on treatment outcomes for older patients with distal radius fractures for which to date equipoise exists regarding the optimal treatment.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/52917.

Dataset Information

Operative Versus Nonoperative Management of Distal Iliotibial Band Syndrome-Where Do We Stand? A Systematic Review.

Publications

Operative Versus Nonoperative Management of Distal Iliotibial Band Syndrome-Where Do We Stand? A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets