Detailed guides to painful problems, treatments & more

Common elective orthopaedic procedures and their clinical effectiveness: umbrella review of level 1 evidence

PainSci » bibliography » Blom et al 2021
Tags: surgery, treatment

Two articles on PainSci cite Blom 2021: 1. Reviews of Pain Professions2. Complete Guide to Low Back Pain

PainSci commentary on Blom 2021: ?This page is one of thousands in the bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided wherever possible.

Blom et al. reviewed the science on ten common orthopaedic surgeries, “carpentry” surgeries for common musculoskeletal problems like back pain and knee arthritis. Two of the ten surgeries they looked at have never been properly tested at all, and just two of the other eight have actually passed muster: total knee replacement and carpal tunnel decompression are the only reasonably clear winners in the whole lot. And they still have significant caveats, like major complications. Complications that aren’t even all that rare.

~ Paul Ingraham

original abstract Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness of common elective orthopaedic procedures compared with no treatment, placebo, or non-operative care and assess the impact on clinical guidelines. DESIGN: Umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials or other study designs in the absence of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Ten of the most common elective orthopaedic procedures-arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic meniscal repair of the knee, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy of the knee, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, arthroscopic subacromial decompression, carpal tunnel decompression, lumbar spine decompression, lumbar spine fusion, total hip replacement, and total knee replacement-were studied. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and bibliographies were searched until September 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (or in the absence of meta-analysis other study designs) that compared the clinical effectiveness of any of the 10 orthopaedic procedures with no treatment, placebo, or non-operative care. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Summary data were extracted by two independent investigators, and a consensus was reached with the involvement of a third. The methodological quality of each meta-analysis was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews instrument. The Jadad decision algorithm was used to ascertain which meta-analysis represented the best evidence. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence search was used to check whether recommendations for each procedure reflected the body of evidence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality and quantity of evidence behind common elective orthopaedic interventions and comparisons with the strength of recommendations in relevant national clinical guidelines. RESULTS: Randomised controlled trial evidence supports the superiority of carpal tunnel decompression and total knee replacement over non-operative care. No randomised controlled trials specifically compared total hip replacement or meniscal repair with non-operative care. Trial evidence for the other six procedures showed no benefit over non-operative care. CONCLUSIONS: Although they may be effective overall or in certain subgroups, no strong, high quality evidence base shows that many commonly performed elective orthopaedic procedures are more effective than non-operative alternatives. Despite the lack of strong evidence, some of these procedures are still recommended by national guidelines in certain situations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018115917.

related content

This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights: