Background and Objectives: Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) with the use of a fascia lata autograft or a dermal allograft is an established treatment in treating irreparable rotator cuff (RC) tears. The long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) has been recently proposed as an alternative graft for SCR. The purpose of this study was to present the surgical techniques and clinical studies utilizing the LHBT for SCR. Material and Methods: Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane library were searched for relevant studies up to December 2020. The primary outcomes were pain intensity improvement and the incidence of RC and LHBT graft retears. Secondary outcomes were functional scores and acromiohumeral distance (AHD) improvements. Results: Nine studies described surgical techniques of SCR using the LHBT, and four clinical studies reported the outcomes of the technique. The mean pain intensity improved from 4.9 ± 2.3 to 1.6 ± 1.5 in terms of the visual analog scale, exceeding the minimum clinically important difference for adequate pain relief. Significant improvements were also noted in functional scores and AHD. When compared with other repair techniques for massive RC tears, i.e., the double-row repair, the transosseous-equivalent technique with absorbable patch reinforcement, and the traditional SCR with a fascia lata autograft, there were no significant differences in pain and function improvements. Conclusion: SCR using the LHBT is a useful treatment option for massive RC tears; it is equally effective with the traditional SCR and other established techniques. It presents numerous advantages being a safe, easy, time-saving, and cost-effective method. The only precondition for the technique is the presence of an intact LHBT. Additional clinical trials are necessary to determine which treatment is superior for treating massive RC tears, as well as to evaluate the long-term results of the technique.

Background: Several pharmacological interventions are used for the management of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder, although the optimal treatment has yet to be defined. Purpose: To conduct a network meta-analysis to compare the effects of different pharmacological interventions for adhesive capsulitis, administered either alone or after distension of the shoulder capsule. Study Design: Network meta-analysis. Methods: The authors searched Scopus, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to April 22, 2018, for completed studies. They enrolled trials that assessed the results of different pharmacological treatments for the primary management of adhesive capsulitis. The primary outcome was pain relief as measured by self-administered questionnaires. The secondary outcome included the assessment of composite instruments that evaluated, at a minimum, pain and function. The authors clinically interpreted the results after back-transforming the standardized mean differences into mean differences in simple instruments and assessed the quality of the source studies using the Cochrane “risk of bias” tool. Results: The authors considered 30 trials with a total of 2010 participants in this systematic review. For pain relief, there was a significant difference in favor of intra-articular corticosteroids and distension of the shoulder capsule with steroids as compared with control in the short term (mean difference in visual analog scale (VAS): –1.4 [95% CI, −2.5 to −0.4] and −1.7 [95% CI, −3.2 to −0.1], respectively). Furthermore, rotator-interval injections were found to be superior to placebo (mean difference in VAS: –7.2; 95% CI, −10.1 to −4.4), although the intervention was considered in only 1 trial. Finally, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of multiple-site corticosteroid injections compared to placebo in both the short- (mean difference in Shoulder Pain and Disability Index [SPADI]: −86.7; 95% CI, −133.6 to −40) and intermediate-term assessment (mean difference in SPADI: −102.9; 95% CI, −163.9 to −41.8). Conclusion: Intra-articular corticosteroid intervention, administered either alone or after distension of the shoulder capsule, provided clinically meaningful improvements in the short term. Likewise, rotator-interval corticosteroid injections yielded promising results in terms of pain relief. However, these short-term benefits of steroids dissipated over time. Multiple-site corticosteroid injections showed clinical advantage over placebo for short- and intermediate-term composite outcome assessments.

Background: To improve ankle stability in patients who have experienced an ankle sprain with residual symptoms of instability and/or objective joint laxity, external supports (such as taping, bracing, and orthotic insoles) are used sometimes. However, available randomized trials have disagreed on whether restraints improve balance in those individuals. In this situation, a network meta-analysis can help because it allows for comparing multiple treatments simultaneously, taking advantage not only of direct but also indirect evidence synthesis. Questions/purposes: The aim of this network meta-analysis was to assess (1) the impact of taping and orthotic devices on dynamic postural control in individuals with ankle instability and (2) the presence of a placebo effect in participants treated with sham taping and complications resulting from the administered treatments. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases up to February 13, 2019 for completed studies. Randomized trials assessing the results of real and/or sham taping, wait-and-see protocols, ankle bracing, and foot orthotics for ankle instability as determined by one or more ankle sprains followed by ongoing subjective symptoms and/or mechanical laxity were included. We evaluated dynamic postural control in terms of the Star Excursion Balance Test in the posteromedial direction (SEBT-PM), which is considered the most representative of balance deficits in patients with ankle instability. Standardized mean differences were re-expressed to percentage differences in SEBT-PM, with higher scores representing possible improvement. Subsequently, those data were checked against the established minimal detectable change of 14% for this scale to make judgements on clinical importance. We also assessed the presence of a placebo effect by comparing the results of sham taping with no treatment and complications resulting from the administered treatments. Additionally, we judged the quality of trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. A total of 22 trials met our inclusion criteria, 18 of which were deemed to be at a low risk of bias. A network of treatments consisting of 13 studies was created, and the level of evidence was judged to be high. As far as participants’ allocation to treatment arms, 85 patients followed a wait-and-see protocol, 29 received placebo taping, 99 were treated with taping, 16 were treated with bracing, 27 were administered insoles, and six individuals were offered a combination of insoles with bracing. Of note, with statistical power set at 80%, a minimum of 16 patients per treatment group was required to provide sufficient statistical power and detect a SEBT-PM percentage difference of 14%. Results: A network meta-analysis did not demonstrate a benefit of taping or bracing over no treatment (percentage difference in SEBT-PM between taping and bracing versus control: -2.4 [95% CI -6 to 1.1]; p = 0.18, and -7.5 [95% CI -15.9 to 1]; p = 0.08, respectively). This was also the case for sham taping because the measurement increase failed to exceed the minimal detectable change (percentage difference in SEBT-PM between sham taping and untreated control: -1.1 [95% CI -6.9 to 4.7]; p = 0.72). Importantly, there were no reported adverse events after treatment application. Conclusions: Evidence of moderate strength indicated that external supports of any type were no more effective than controls in improving dynamic postural control in patients with at least one ankle sprain and residual functional or mechanical deficits. Therefore, implementing those tools as a standalone treatment does not appear to be a viable strategy for the primary management of ankle instability. It is conceivable that combinations of rehabilitation and external supports could be more effective than external supports alone, and future trials should evaluate the potential of such combinations in enhancing not only clinician-reported but also patient-oriented outcomes using long-term follow-up measurements. Level of Evidence: Level I, therapeutic study.

Network meta-analyses: Methodological prerequisites and clinical usefulness