9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Physical impairments in Adults with Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip (DDH) undergoing Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is a condition associated with hip pain and impairments. Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is a common surgical treatment for DDH. Outcomes following PAO have historically been based on radiology or patient reported outcomes, and not physical impairments.

          Objective

          To investigate differences in physical impairments in adults with DDH undergoing PAO compared with asymptomatic participants, and to investigate pre- to post-PAO changes in physical impairments.

          Design

          Systematic review with meta-analysis

          Methods

          A literature search was performed in five databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Sports Discuss, and PsychINFO), using the PRISMA checklist. Studies were considered eligible if patients were aged 15 years and older, treated with PAO for DDH and if they included a physical impairment outcome measure. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed methodological quality, using a modified version of the Downs and Black checklist.

          Results

          Of 5,017 studies, 24 studies were included with 2190 patients. The methodological quality scores ranged from 39% to 88%. With low level of evidence, meta-analysis showed 58% of patients had a positive anterior impingement test (95%CI: 39-76%), prior to PAO and one to three years after PAO. Five years after PAO, the proportion fell to 17% (95%CI: 11-24%). Prior to PAO, patients with DDH walked with a lower peak hip extension angle, compared to asymptomatic participants (SMD 0.65 (95%CI 0.21-1.10). Best evidence synthesis of non-pooled data showed limited evidence of increased walking velocity, stride length and improved hip flexion and extension moment 18-months post-PAO compared to pre-op. Cadence, hip abduction and hip flexion strength did not change.

          Conclusion

          Most patients with DDH have a positive hip impingement test, pre-PAO. Compared to asymptomatic participants, patients with DDH demonstrate physical impairments during walking which appear to improve after surgery. Hip abduction and flexion strength did not change pre- to post-PAO.

          Level of Evidence

          1b

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range

            Background In systematic reviews and meta-analysis, researchers often pool the results of the sample mean and standard deviation from a set of similar clinical trials. A number of the trials, however, reported the study using the median, the minimum and maximum values, and/or the first and third quartiles. Hence, in order to combine results, one may have to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation for such trials. Methods In this paper, we propose to improve the existing literature in several directions. First, we show that the sample standard deviation estimation in Hozo et al.’s method (BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13, 2005) has some serious limitations and is always less satisfactory in practice. Inspired by this, we propose a new estimation method by incorporating the sample size. Second, we systematically study the sample mean and standard deviation estimation problem under several other interesting settings where the interquartile range is also available for the trials. Results We demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods through simulation studies for the three frequently encountered scenarios, respectively. For the first two scenarios, our method greatly improves existing methods and provides a nearly unbiased estimate of the true sample standard deviation for normal data and a slightly biased estimate for skewed data. For the third scenario, our method still performs very well for both normal data and skewed data. Furthermore, we compare the estimators of the sample mean and standard deviation under all three scenarios and present some suggestions on which scenario is preferred in real-world applications. Conclusions In this paper, we discuss different approximation methods in the estimation of the sample mean and standard deviation and propose some new estimation methods to improve the existing literature. We conclude our work with a summary table (an Excel spread sheet including all formulas) that serves as a comprehensive guidance for performing meta-analysis in different situations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

              The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Sports Phys Ther
                Int J Sports Phys Ther
                2159
                International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
                NASMI
                2159-2896
                1 October 2022
                2022
                : 17
                : 6
                : 988-1001
                Affiliations
                [1 ] eduLa Trobe Sports Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
                [2 ] eduResearch Centre for Health and Welfare Technology, Programme for Rehabilitation, VIA University College, Aarhus, Denmark; Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark
                [3 ]deptDepartment of Physiotherapy, Podiatry and Prosthetics and Orthortics , eduLa Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
                [4 ] eduDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
                Author notes

                Corresponding author: Joanne L Kemp1, PT, PhD La Trobe Sports Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia Email: j.kemp@latrobe.edu.au, Ph: +61394791421

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7438-0160
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3323-3631
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5399-7463
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5432-8691
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4666-4622
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8691-1830
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9234-1923
                Article
                38166
                10.26603/001c.38166
                9528691
                36237653
                78f8efb3-895c-4593-8944-b7437db6c5c9

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 6 January 2022
                : 20 May 2022
                Categories
                Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis

                developmental dysplasia of the hip,periacetabular osteotomy,physical impairments,rehabilitation,gait

                Comments

                Comment on this article