Dataset Information

The role of arthroscopy in bullet removal: A systematic review of the literature.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to gain a greater understanding of the role and usage of arthroscopy in removal of retained bullet fragments. Secondarily, we intend to examine the level of evidence and methodologic quality of studies reporting on this topic.

Methods

A search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was performed using the search terms ("Arthroscopic" OR "Arthroscopy") AND ("Bullet" OR "Gunshot" OR "Ballistic" OR "Removal"). Inclusion criteria included articles published in English reporting on arthroscopic or arthroscopically-assisted bullet removal. Studies lacking sufficient data to separate arthroscopic and open procedures were excluded. Level of evidence, study information (i.e., country, journal, etc.), and patient data was collected from each eligible article. The methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) score were assigned to each article.

Results

A total of 2676 studies were identified in the initial search with 31 studies meeting criteria for inclusion in the study. Twenty-eight of the 31 studies were case reports. The MINORS score averaged 8.8 ± 1.5 (range 5-10) for included studies. Sixty-two patients were identified, the majority (94%) of whom were male with an average age of 36.2 ± 12.3 years. All 62 patients underwent successful arthroscopic bullet removal. One patient was reported to have a complication (compartment syndrome). Outcome measures were underreported in the majority of studies.

Conclusions

Our study found that very little literature exists on the role of arthroscopy in bullet removal. Of this literature, no high-quality studies exist. Based on the limited existing literature, arthroscopy appears to be a safe, reliable alternative to open surgery for bullet removal. Potential benefits of arthroscopic bullet removal exist and warrant further investigation to further define the role of arthroscopy.

Level of evidence

Level V.

SUBMITTER: Cantrell C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7551986 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:CONTEXT: Rehabilitation following hip arthroscopy is an integral component of the clinical outcome of the procedure. Given the increase in quantity, complexity, and diversity of procedures performed, a need exists to define the role of rehabilitation following hip arthroscopy. OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine the current rehabilitation protocols utilized following hip arthroscopy in the current literature, (2) to determine if clinical outcomes are significantly different based on different post-operative rehabilitation protocols, and (3) to propose the best-available evidence-based rehabilitation program following hip arthroscopy. DATA SOURCES: Per PRISMA guidelines and checklist, Medline, SciVerse Scopus, SportDiscus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Level I-IV evidence clinical studies with minimum 2-year follow-up reporting outcomes of hip arthroscopy with post-operative rehabilitation protocols described were included. DATA EXTRACTION: All study, subject, and surgery parameters were collected. All elements of rehabilitation were extracted and analyzed. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Study methodological quality was analyzed using the modified Coleman methodology score. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included (2,092 subjects; 52% male, mean age 35.1 ± 10.6 years, mean follow-up 3.2 ± 1.0 years). Labral tear and femoroacetabular impingement were the most common diagnoses treated and labral debridement and femoral/acetabular osteochondroplasty the most common surgical techniques performed. Rehabilitation protocol parameters (weight-bearing, motion, strengthening, and return to sport) were poorly reported. Differences in clinical outcomes were unable to be assessed given heterogeneity in study reporting. Time-, phase-, goal-, and precaution-based guidelines were extracted and reported. CONCLUSION: The current literature of hip arthroscopy rehabilitation lacks high-quality evidence to support a specific protocol. Heterogeneity in study, subject, and surgical demographics precluded assimilation of protocols and/or outcomes to generate evidence-based guidelines. Strengths and limitations in the literature were identified. Future studies should recognize and report the essentials of rehabilitation following hip arthroscopy.

Project description:ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review to determine the current arthroscopic techniques of the fixation of femoral head and acetabulum fractures and assess the radiological and functional outcomes reported in literature written in English.MethodsThis review was performed by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science without a filter for time limitation in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Two authors took part in screening and evaluating the literature between December 2020 and January 2021. The terms acetabulum fracture, reduction, fixation, femur head fracture, fracture dislocation of the hip, hip trauma and arthroscopy or arthroscopic, and their combinations were used to search four database engines in the titles and abstracts of the reported papers. Only papers with English titles and abstracts were included. The assessment of the data related to descriptions of the techniques, indications for fracture fixation using arthroscopy, and patient-related outcomes.ResultsPerfect agreement was detected between the two reviewers during all steps of the review process (κ = 0.81-1.00). Although a meta-analysis was planned to be carried out, no randomized controlled study comparing either the radiological or functional results of different surgical techniques was detected in the literature. Nineteen studies were included in the study. Of these, 15 were retrospective case reports and four were case series. Twenty-seven patients were operated on for acetabulum fractures (18 male/nine female). The mean age was 28.3 years (range, 15-53 years). High-energy traumas including motor vehicle accidents were the most common reason (81%). The duration of follow-up was a mean of 32 months (range, 12-68 months). Sixteen patients were operated on for femur fractures (12 male/three female). The mean age was 30.1 years (range, 17-50 years). Motor vehicle accident was the most common trauma (70%). Duration of follow-up had a mean of 18 months (range, 4-60 months). Patient-related outcomes were excellent for reported cases in both groups despite the fact that an objective scoring system was not used for most of the cases. Moreover, there was no consensus on surgical indications or the techniques.ConclusionsThe techniques of arthroscopic-assisted fixation of acetabulum and femoral head fracture are so heterogeneous that conclusions cannot be made at this time, but there is potential for this method of treatment to become more popular as the devices used in the procedure develop and as exposure to and experience with hip arthroscopy improves. Further descriptions of reduction and fixation techniques and analysis of outcomes of RCTs are needed.

Project description:The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate and compare the risks and benefits of germectomy and delayed removal of third molars and develop a patient management algorithm for second molar eruption in syndrome/incompliant patients. A literature search was performed in the following databases; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Last search was done on July 2nd, 2018 including articles published from the last 18 years. The search aimed to identify all relevant studies written in English language. Gray literature was excluded. Risk of bias was evaluated with specific predetermined criteria. This systematic literature review was reported according to the PRISMA-P statement and was registered in the PROSPERO database with the following protocol ID: 104261. Literature search war performed on July 2018 and updated on February 2019. A total of 1610 articles were screened. After abstract screening and discarding duplicates, 86 full-text articles were obtained and subjected to additional evaluation. Four articles were included in the review. Three studies were considered as having a medium risk of bias and one was assessed as at high risk. Due to the heterogeneity of presenting results and a very low number of included studies a quantitative analysis was not possible. Only qualitative analysis was made. Considering the limited number of studies included and the level of risk of bias there is no sufficient evidence to state the benefits of preventive removal of impacted third molars, especially in patients with poor oral hygiene due to intellectual disability. Early germectomy represents an elective approach of pathologic alteration of tooth germ; orthodontic issues meet appropriate indication for a delayed removal. Given the best evidence-based information regarding patients' medical condition, we highlight the need to provide an ethical-based comprehensive approach in the diagnostic workflow and the assessment of treatment outcome.