Miclau, Theodore

Background Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has emerged as a promising neurostimulation modality, yet its effectiveness and durability for chronic pain remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate changes in pain intensity following implantable PNS therapy. Methods Eligible studies included adults (≥18 years) with chronic pain treated with an implantable PNS system, and pain intensity was assessed at baseline and follow-up time points. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity from baseline to 6 months after PNS implantation. Secondary outcomes included changes in pain intensity at 3, 12 and 24 months after PNS implantation. Standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g ) were pooled using a random-effects model. Results A total of 106 studies comprising 9272 patients were included. PNS was associated with large, statistically significant reductions in pain intensity from baseline to all time points: 3 months (Hedges’ g 2.92; 95% CI 2.62 to 3.21), 6 months (Hedges’ g 3.08; 95% CI 2.68 to 3.48), 12 months (Hedges’ g 2.68; 95% CI 2.30 to 3.05) and 24 months (Hedges’ g 2.08; 95% CI 1.68 to 2.48) (all p<0.001). However, the certainty of evidence as assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria was rated as low for the primary outcome, due to pooling from observational studies, risk of bias, and heterogeneity (statistical, clinical and methodological). Subgroup analyses revealed no differences by study design or device type, while smaller effect sizes were reported in industry-funded studies and those with declared conflicts of interest. The largest effect sizes were observed in pelvic and upper extremity pain, whereas the smallest in truncal pain. Conclusion Implantable PNS provides persistent and clinically meaningful analgesia for chronic pain, with benefits sustained up to 24 months. These findings support broader clinical adoption and provide evidence to inform pay0r coverage and policy decisions.

Abstract Rehabilitation after musculoskeletal trauma is globally acknowledged as essential for restoring function and improving quality of life; however, significant variation exists in rehabilitation frameworks and services worldwide. Although certain principles—such as early intervention, structured care pathways, and multidisciplinary approaches—are universally recognized as important determinants of outcomes in trauma patients, their implementation and effectiveness vary considerably due to differences in health care infrastructure, economic resources, policy frameworks, and cultural contexts. Drawing on comparative analyses of rehabilitation frameworks across regions, including North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and Africa, this paper identifies structural variations, systemic challenges, and innovations that can inform global rehabilitation efforts. Strategic international collaboration focusing on shared learning, standardized protocols, technology integration, and targeted investments is key to creating equitable and sustainable rehabilitation models, especially in resource-limited settings and aging populations.

Abstract: Globally, the burden of musculoskeletal conditions continues to rise, disproportionately affecting low and middle-income countries (LMICs). The ability to meet these orthopaedic surgical care demands remains a challenge. To help address these issues, many orthopaedic surgeons seek opportunities to provide humanitarian assistance to the populations in need. While many global orthopaedic initiatives are well-intentioned and can offer short-term benefits to the local communities, it is essential to emphasize training and the integration of local surgeon-leaders. The commitment to developing educational and investigative capacity, as well as fostering sustainable, mutually beneficial partnerships in low-resource settings, is critical. To this end, global health organizations, such as the Consortium of Orthopaedic Academic Traumatologists (COACT), work to promote and ensure the lasting sustainability of musculoskeletal trauma care worldwide. This article describes global orthopaedic efforts that can effectively address musculoskeletal care through an examination of 5 domains: clinical care, clinical research, surgical education, disaster response, and advocacy.

ABSTRACTThere is a clear discrepancy between the growth of cell therapy and tissue engineering research in orthopaedics over the last two decades and the number of approved clinical therapies and products available to patients. At the 2015 annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society, a workshop was held to highlight important considerations from the perspectives of an academic scientist, clinical researcher, and industry representative with the aim of helping researchers to successfully translate their ideas into clinical and commercial reality. Survey data acquired from workshop participants indicated an overall positive opinion on the future potential of cell‐based therapies to make a significant contribution to orthopaedic medicine. The survey also indicated an agreement on areas requiring improvement in the development of new therapies, specifically; increased support for fundamental research and education and improved transparency of regulatory processes. This perspectives article summarises the content and conclusions of the workshop and puts forward suggestions on how translational success of cell‐based therapies in orthopaedics may be achieved. © 2015 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 34:17–21, 2016.