1. |
- DeFoor, Mikalyn T., et al.
(author)
-
No Difference in Recurrent Instability Between Knotted and Knotless Repair Techniques in Arthroscopic Treatment of Isolated Posterior Labral Tears: A Systematic Review
- 2024
-
In: Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. - 2666-061X. ; 6:1
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: To compare clinical failure, recurrent instability, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and return to sport (RTS) between knotted and knotless fixation methods in arthroscopic posterior labral repair for isolated posterior shoulder instability (PSI). Methods: Multiple databases were queried according to Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for clinical studies with Level I to IV evidence, including knotted and knotless suture anchors for arthroscopic posterior labral repair. Combined anterior and posterior instability, multidirectional instability, SLAP injuries, unspecified repair techniques, majority open procedures, and revision surgery were excluded. Results: Screening yielded 17 full-text articles reporting on 852 shoulders undergoing posterior labral repair. Recurrent instability ranged from 0% to 21%, and the rate of revision surgery ranged from 0% to 11% in knotted only, 0% in knotless only, and 2.0% to 8.1% in knotted and knotless studies. Six studies with both pre- and postoperative visual analog scale scores and 7 studies with both pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Score scores all showed improvement in scores after intervention regardless of repair technique. Thirteen studies reported RTS or duty rates with a minimum of 79%. Conclusions: Overall recurrent instability after posterior labral repair for isolated PSI was low with improvement in PROMs and favorable RTS rates regardless of fixation method. There was no clear difference in recurrent instability or revision surgery between knotted and knotless fixation methods for isolated posterior labral repair. However, the current literature is predominantly limited by Level III and IV evidence. The quality of literature and lack of standardization on the definition of clinical failure and recurrent instability among surgeons preclude any definitive conclusion regarding one clinically superior fixation method. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
|
|
2. |
- Morel, Alexandra C., et al.
(author)
-
The structures underpinning vulnerability : Examining landscape-society interactions in a smallholder coffee agroforestry system
- 2019
-
In: Environmental Research Letters. - : IOP Publishing. - 1748-9326. ; 14:7
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Smallholder farmers dependent on rain-fed agriculture are particularly vulnerable to extreme climate events and, therefore, it is necessary to identify adaptive measures that would increase farmer resilience to these shocks. The management options in a low-input system, like forest coffee (Coffea arabica), are limited and there are several factors out of farmers' control driving their vulnerability to changing climatic conditions. These can relate to social structures and landscape factors, which can interact to reduce farmers' adaptive capacity, creating a state of contextual vulnerability. We explored the potential synergies of this interaction across elevation, patch area and shade management gradients for smallholder coffee farms around the UNESCO Yayu Coffee Forest Biosphere Reserve in Ethiopia before, during and immediately following the 2015/16 El Niño. We documented a dramatic collapse in coffee yields across all farms, resulting in coffee incomes 29.5% ±18.0% and 19.5% ±10.0% of 2014 incomes in 2015 and 2016, respectively. We identified farms at elevations between 1500 and 1600 m with canopy openness between 40% and 45% as being consistently low yielding over our study period. We found these farmers had the highest rates of income diversification and, therefore, were already exhibiting adaptive capacity. Farmers with the largest income losses were spatially concentrated between 1600 and 1700 m, located in larger patch areas with lower canopy openness. Farmers at this elevation have access to poor infrastructure, restrictions on shade management and reported higher dependence on income from coffee, indicating an interaction of biotic and social factors exacerbating their vulnerability. Unfortunately, due to a nationally declared state of emergency, we were unable to survey farmers on the adaptive measures they undertook; therefore, we are limited in assessing their resilience. However, we do show the importance of considering both biotically and socially-mediated influences for assessing smallholder vulnerability, particularly barriers to diversifying incomes.
|
|