A David Davis

Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Are you A David Davis?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)7.21 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To address persisting controversy in the literature concerning the efficacy of arthroscopic compared to open acromioplasty, a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the treatment effect after both approaches. The final clinical outcomes will be the same after both open and arthroscopic acromioplasty. However, the arthroscopic technique results in faster recovery and less postoperative morbidity as reflected by faster return to work and decreased hospital stays. Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3. We performed our search of published English language literature using PubMed. We also searched the proceedings from 4 major orthopaedic meetings convened from 2000 to 2007. Furthermore, the reference sections of all relevant articles were reviewed for pertinent studies and presentations. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria that directly compared arthroscopic versus open acromioplasty with minimum follow-up of 1 year. The analysis focused on 1-year clinical outcome and included comparison of the objective 100-point score, hospital stay, time until return to work, operative time, and complications. No significant differences were found in clinical outcomes or complications for the 2 groups. However, open acromioplasty was associated with longer hospital stays (2.3 days, P = .05) and a greater length in time until return to work (65.1 days) compared with the arthroscopic technique (48.6 days) (P < .05). Arthroscopic and open acromioplasty have equivalent ultimate clinical outcomes, operative times, and low complication rates. However, arthroscopic acromioplasty results in faster return to work and fewer hospital inpatient days compared with the open technique.
    The American journal of sports medicine 02/2009; 38(3):613-8. · 3.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Controversy remains regarding the results of all arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs compared with the mini-open approach. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive literature search and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing the results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs and mini-open rotator cuff repairs. There is no difference between the clinical results obtained from all arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs compared with mini-open repairs. Meta-analysis. A computerized search of articles published between 1966 and July 2006 was performed using MEDLINE and PubMed. Additionally, a search of abstracts from 4 major annual meetings each held between 2000 and 2005 was performed to identify Level I to III studies comparing the results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and mini-open repair. Studies that included follow-up of an average of over 2 years and a minimum of 1 year and included the use of 1 of 4 validated functional outcome scores used to study shoulder injuries were included in the present meta-analysis. All outcome scores were converted to a 100-point scale to allow for outcome comparison. Five studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified. There was no difference in functional outcome scores or complications between the arthroscopic and mini-open repair groups. Based on current literature, there was no difference in outcomes between the arthroscopic and mini-open rotator cuff repair techniques.
    The American journal of sports medicine 10/2008; 36(9):1824-8. · 3.61 Impact Factor