A discoid meniscus is a morphological abnormality wherein the meniscus loses its normal ‘C’ shape. Although most patients are asymptomatic, patients might still present with symptoms such as locking, pain, swelling, or giving way. Magnetic resonance imaging is usually needed for confirmation of diagnosis. Based on a constellation of factors, including clinical and radiological, different approaches are chosen for the management of discoid meniscus. The purpose of this review is to outline the treatment of discoid meniscus, starting from conservative approach, to the different surgical options for this condition. The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were used for this review. Studies discussing the treatment of discoid meniscus from 2018 to 2023 were searched. Initially there were 369 studies retrieved, and after removal of studies using the exclusion criteria, 26 studies were included in this review. Factors such as stability, presence of tear, and morphology can help with surgical planning. Many approaches have been used to treat discoid meniscus, where the choice is tailored for each patient individually. Postoperatively, factors that may positively impact patient outcomes include male sex, body mass index < 18.5, age at symptom onset < 25 years, and duration of symptoms < 24 months. The conventional approach is partial meniscectomy with or without repair; however, recently, there has been an increased emphasis on discoid-preserving techniques such as meniscoplasty, meniscopexy, and meniscal allograft transplantation.

BackgroundPhysical trauma is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality worldwide. In Saudi Arabia, RTAs are the leading cause of injuries, with fractures being a critical aspect of trauma care. To address this prevalent healthcare burden, a detailed analysis of the costs associated with surgical interventions to optimize resource allocation and improve healthcare planning is crucial.MethodThis retrospective cost analysis was conducted at King Saud University Medical City between January 2016 and March 2022. A total of 2689 orthopaedic trauma surgeries were analysed. The cost data were converted to US dollars (1 USD = 3.75 SR). Statistical analysis was conducted via SPSS, with comparisons of costs by sex, age group, procedure type, and other relevant factors.ResultsThe total cost of trauma surgeries over the study period was $8,548,749.90. The most common procedure was ORIF, which was performed 1415 times, accounting for $5,660,000.00 of the total cost. Males represented 65.7% of the patients, incurring $5,647,976.44 in expenses. Patients under the age of 21 had the highest number of cases by age (43.5%), and the total cost was $3,276,293.44. Scheduled surgeries had higher average costs than emergent procedures did, and lower extremity surgeries accounted for more cases but had lower average costs than upper extremity surgeries did.ConclusionThe cost of orthopaedic trauma care is significantly influenced by factors such as procedure type, age, and sex. When certain cost patterns are identified and analysed, an approach toward cost effectiveness while maintaining high-quality healthcare delivery can be achieved. Projected trends show an increase in the number of cases by 2030, indicating increased costs. Future studies should consider additional factors, such as rehabilitation costs, and explore cost-saving opportunities in surgical interventions.

Background: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatment practices are frequently utilized by patients alongside conventional modern medicine. CAM options are commonly practiced by orthopedic trauma patients and are usually driven by cultural and sometimes religious beliefs. This study aims to evaluate the prevalence, practices and influencing factors of CAM use among orthopedic patients. Methodology: An observational cross-sectional survey study was carried out at the Orthopedic Department fracture clinics in a tertiary trauma center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Participants were recruited from orthopedic fracture clinics and requested to complete a questionnaire survey. Results: Among the 356 surveyed fracture patients, 49.4% reported using CAM. Of these CAM users, 20.5% patients used CAM for the first time after being diagnosed with fracture, while 79.5% of patients had previously utilized CAM and increased their usage after fracture diagnosis. CAM practices were significantly associated with older age, joint reconstructive fracture treatment, and reported disability/dependence. Fenugreek was the most commonly consumed type by 81% of CAM users. The key motivations for CAM use were the perception of enhancing the fracture healing process and maintaining good health. Notably, 61.5% of CAM users reported experiencing improvements in their physical health, while 9.0% of the users experienced adverse effects such as weight gain and joint pain. Conclusion: Our study shed a light on the high prevalence of CAM usage among fracture patients, with Fenugreek being the most popular. Potential influencing factors for CAM practices were investigated including demographic, socioeconomic as well as fracture-related factors. Despite its high prevalence, CAM use is often not discussed with the treating physicians, therefore, increased physician awareness and enhanced patient communication about CAM practices are essential. Further investigations are required to explore CAM adverse effects as well as impact on fracture healing and general health.