Acute septic arthritis is on the rise among all patients. Acute septic arthritis must be extensively assessed, identified, and treated to prevent fatal consequences. Antimicrobial therapy administered intravenously has long been considered the gold standard for treating acute osteoarticular infections. According to clinical research, parenteral antibiotics for a few days, followed by oral antibiotics, are safe and effective for treating infections without complications. This article focuses on bringing physicians up-to-date on the most recent findings and discussions about the epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of acute septic arthritis. In recent years, the emergence of antibiotic-resistant, particularly aggressive bacterial species has highlighted the need for more research to enhance treatment approaches and develop innovative diagnosis methods and drugs that might combat better in all patients. This article aims to furnish radiologists, orthopaedic surgeons, and other medical practitioners with contemporary insights on the subject matter and foster collaborative efforts to improve patient outcomes. This review represents the initial comprehensive update encompassing patients across all age groups.

Background: Over the past few years, many studies have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in treating musculoskeletal conditions. However, there is controversy about its benefits for patients with Achilles tendinopathy. Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether platelet-rich plasma injections can improve outcomes in patients with Achilles tendinopathy. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biomedical CD-ROM, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal databases to identify randomised controlled clinical trials that compared the efficacy of PRP injection in patients with Achilles tendinopathy (AT) versus placebo, published between 1 January 1966 and 1 December 2022. Review Manager 5.4.1 software was used for the statistical analysis, and the Jadad score was used to assess the included literature. Only 8 of the 288 articles found met the inclusion criteria. Results: Our work suggests that: The PRP treatment group had a slightly higher VISA–A score than the placebo group at 6 weeks [MD = 1.92, 95% CI (−0.54, 4.38), I² = 34%], at 12 weeks [MD = 0.20, 95% CI (−2.65 3.05), I² = 60%], and 24 weeks [MD = 2.75, 95% CI (−2.76, 8.26), I² = 87%]). However, the difference was not statistically significant. The Achilles tendon thickness was higher at 12 weeks of treatment in the PRP treatment group compared to the control group [MD = 0.34, 95% CI (−0.04, 0.71), p = 0.08], but the difference was not statistically significant. The VAS-improvement results showed no significant difference at 6 and 24 weeks between the two groups, respectively (MD = 6.75, 95% CI = (−6.12, 19.62), I² = 69%, p = 0.30), and (MD = 10.46, 95% CI = (−2.44 to 23.37), I² = 69%, p = 0.11). However, at 12 weeks of treatment, the PRP injection group showed a substantial VAS improvement compared to the control group (MD = 11.30, 95% CI = (7.33 to 15.27), I² = 0%, p < 0.00001). The difference was statistically significant. The return to exercise rate results showed a higher return to exercise rate in the PRP treatment group than the placebo group [RR = 1.11, 95% CI (0.87, 1.42), p = 0.40]; the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: There is no proof that PRP injections can enhance patient functional and clinical outcomes for Achilles tendinopathy. Augmenting the frequency of PRP injections may boost the outcomes, and additionally, more rigorous designs and standardised clinical randomised controlled trials are needed to produce more reliable and accurate results.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent degenerative disease accompanied by the activation of innate and adaptive immune systems-associated inflammatory responses. Due to the local inflammation, the expression of various cytokines was altered in affected joints, including CC motif chemokine ligands (CCLs) and their receptors (CCRs). As essential members of chemokines, CCLs and CCRs played an important role in the pathogenesis and treatment of OA. The bindings between CCLs and CCRs on the chondrocyte membrane promoted chondrocyte apoptosis and the release of multiple matrix-degrading enzymes, which resulted in cartilage degradation. In addition, CCLs and CCRs had chemoattractant functions to attract various immune cells to osteoarthritic joints, further leading to the aggravation of local inflammation. Furthermore, in the nerve endings of joints, CCLs and CCRs, along with several cellular factors, contributed to pain hypersensitivity by releasing neurotransmitters in the spinal cord. Given this family’s diverse and complex functions, targeting the functional network of CCLs and CCRs is a promising strategy for the prognosis and treatment of OA in the future.

As non-pharmacological options for osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA), cold and heat therapies manipulate local temperatures to improve symptoms and promote functional recovery. Cryotherapy reduces acute pain and inflammation by lowering temperatures, while thermotherapy elevates body temperature to enhance blood circulation and tissue repair. Contrast therapy combines the benefits of cold and heat treatments, alternating between them to boost blood flow and relieve pain. This review analyzes the existing literature, highlighting the potential benefits of these treatments in alleviating symptoms of patients with OA and RA, while emphasizing the importance of developing personalized treatment plans in clinical practice. Although specific recommendations for the application of cold and heat therapies vary across major clinical guidelines, their cautious use tailored to individual patient circumstances is generally considered beneficial. Further, with the emergence of new cold and heat therapy devices and materials, such as wearable devices and applications of nanotechnology, more possibilities for physical therapy in arthritis are available now. These innovative technologies are expected to enhance the precision, safety, and convenience of treatments. However, current research on cold and heat therapies still has limitations, including small sample sizes and a lack of long-term follow-up data. Future research needs to further validate the efficacy and safety of these treatment methods through large-scale, high-quality clinical trials, and probe their role in the comprehensive management of OA and RA.

Knee ligament injuries are most common in sports injuries. In general, ligament repair or reconstruction is necessary to restore the stability of the knee joint and prevent secondary injuries. Despite advances in ligament repair and reconstruction techniques, a number of patients still experience re-rupture of the graft and suboptimal recovery of motor function. Since Dr. Mackay’s introduction of the internal brace technique, there has been continuous research in recent years using the internal brace ligament augmentation technique for knee ligament repair or reconstruction, particularly in the repair or reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. This technique focuses on increasing the strength of autologous or allograft tendon grafts through the use of braided ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene suture tapes to facilitate postoperative rehabilitation and avoid re-rupture or failure. The purpose of this review is to present detailed research progress in the internal brace ligament enhancement technique of knee ligament injury repair as well as the reconstruction from biomechanical and histological research and clinical studies and to comprehensively assess the value of the application of this technique.

Background: Musculoskeletal disorders cause pain, disability, and financial burdens, with rising prevalence. Virtual reality (VR) offers immersive, digital rehabilitation potential, improving motor functions and pain management. Objective: To evaluate the impact of VR on the rehabilitation of musculoskeletal disorders and to assess the consistency of evidence provided by existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, this study focuses on musculoskeletal disorders, which encompass conditions affecting the locomotor system, such as arthritis, joint deformities, and injuries. VR therapy leverages immersive digital environments to enhance rehabilitation through digital exercises and simulations. Methods: The PubMed or MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for relevant papers published up to April 2024. Literature screening, quality assessment, and data extraction were conducted according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to classify the evidence level for each outcome as high, moderate, low, or very low. Additionally, the evidence was categorized into 5 levels based on classification criteria: I (convincing), II (highly suggestive), III (suggestive), IV (weak), and nonsignificant. Results: This umbrella review synthesized data from 14 meta-analyses published between 2019 and 2024, involving a total of 13,184 patients. In total, 7 meta-analyses received high Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 ratings, 7 were rated moderate, and the remainder were rated low. VR demonstrated promising results in musculoskeletal rehabilitation, significantly reducing knee pain (mean difference [MD] –1.38, 95% CI –2.32 to –0.44; P=.004; I2=94%) and improving balance. For patients with fibromyalgia syndrome, VR effectively reduced pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] –0.45, 95% CI –0.70 to –0.20; P<.001), fatigue (SMD –0.58, 95% CI –1.01 to –0.14; P=.01), anxiety (SMD –0.50, 95% CI –0.908 to –0.029; P=.04), and depression (SMD –0.62, 95% CI –0.76 to –0.15; P=.003) while also enhancing quality of life. In individuals with back pain, VR alleviated pain-related fears (MD –5.46, 95% CI –9.40 to –1.52; P=.007; I2=90%) and reduced pain intensity (MD –1.43, 95% CI –1.86 to –1.00; P<.001; I2=95%). After arthroplasty, VR improved knee functionality (MD 8.30, 95% CI 6.92-9.67; P<.001; I2=24%) and decreased anxiety (MD –3.95, 95% CI –7.76 to –0.13; P=.04; I2=0%). Conclusions: VR demonstrates significant potential in the rehabilitation of various musculoskeletal conditions. It effectively alleviates pain, enhances psychological well-being, and facilitates the recovery of motor function in patients. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42024538469; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024538469