Autor: Tomasz Poboży

  • CAR-T Cells Made Directly in the Body? Early Results in Autoimmune Neurologic Disease

    General Medical Discoveries · Early human study

    Researchers have reported early results from a method designed to generate CD19 CAR-T cells directly inside the patient using a lentiviral vector, rather than first collecting and modifying cells in a laboratory. Among 16 people with treatment-refractory neurologic autoimmune disorders, the study reported complete B-cell depletion, manageable side effects and preliminary clinical improvement across disease groups. The approach is interesting because it could eventually simplify CAR-T treatment, which is best known from oncology. An orthopaedic surgeon following developments in cell therapy should note that, for now, this is a small early report rather than evidence from a large controlled trial, so larger controlled studies are needed before it can be considered established treatment.

    Source: Cheng Y-H, et al. Lentiviral In Vivo CD19 CAR T-Cell Therapy in Neurologic Autoimmune Disorders. New England Journal of Medicine. Published online 2 September 2026;395:926–929. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2603114 · PubMed. Access used for this summary: article page and abstract; bibliographic metadata checked in PubMed on 15 September 2026.

    More General Medical Discoveries · Polish version

    Content prepared by: Tomasz Poboży - orthopaedic surgeon.

  • Lab-Grown Heart Cells: A Step Toward Repairing the Heart After a Heart Attack

    General Medical Discoveries · Animal study

    Researchers produced aggregates of heart muscle cells from human induced pluripotent stem cells and transplanted them into the hearts of monkeys after myocardial infarction. Three months later, substantial, organised human graft tissue was present in the animals’ hearts, and recovery of heart function appeared to vary with the properties of the cardiomyocytes used. Graft-related arrhythmias occurred, although they became less frequent over time. An orthopaedic surgeon following regenerative medicine should distinguish preclinical progress from clinical evidence: this is an important preclinical step toward repairing damaged heart muscle, but it does not yet show that this specific approach is safe or effective in people.

    Source: Gruh I, Martens A, et al. Human iPSC-cardiomyocyte-aggregate cell therapy in non-human primates and correlation of heart recovery with contractile and electrophysiological cardiomyocyte properties. Nature Communications. Published 26 August 2026;17:9066. Source publication · PubMed. Prepared from the public abstract and bibliographic record; full text was not used. Source details checked 15 September 2026.

    More General Medical Discoveries · Polish version

    Content prepared by: Tomasz Poboży - orthopaedic surgeon.

  • Artroskopia biodra po 40. roku życia — co pokazuje nowy przegląd?

    Nowy przegląd wskazuje, że odpowiednio dobrani pacjenci po 40. roku życia mogą odczuwać utrzymującą się poprawę po artroskopii biodra z powodu konfliktu udowo-panewkowego. Nie oznacza to jednak, że wiek przestaje mieć znaczenie ani że operacja jest lepsza od leczenia zachowawczego u każdej osoby.

    Co zbadano?

    Autorzy przeglądu opublikowanego 14 września 2026 r. zebrali dziewięć badań obejmujących 451 pacjentów i 467 bioder. Obserwacja trwała od 60 do 167 miesięcy, czyli od pięciu do prawie czternastu lat. Analizowano osoby w wieku co najmniej 40 lat leczone artroskopowo z powodu zespołu konfliktu udowo-panewkowego.

    Najważniejszy wynik

    W poszczególnych badaniach wyniki dotyczące bólu i funkcji poprawiały się i często utrzymywały w dłuższej obserwacji. Gdy dostępne były porównania z młodszymi grupami, różnice związane z wiekiem nie były spójne. U części osób potrzebna była jednak później całkowita endoprotezoplastyka biodra — odsetek takiej konwersji w badaniach wynosił od 2,9% do 13,2%.

    Co pacjent i ortopeda powinni uwzględnić w decyzji?

    Sam wiek powyżej 40 lat nie powinien być jedynym argumentem za ani przeciw artroskopii. Znaczenie mają rzeczywiste objawy, badanie kliniczne, stan chrząstki i obrąbka oraz to, czy problem odpowiada obrazowi konfliktu udowo-panewkowego. Więcej o tym, jak łączy się te informacje, opisuje poradnik Konflikt udowo-panewkowy i uszkodzenie obrąbka biodra.

    Przegląd nie porównywał w sposób randomizowany artroskopii z dobrze prowadzoną rehabilitacją. Nie pozwala więc stwierdzić, że operacja jest najlepszym pierwszym wyborem. Pokazuje raczej, że u starannie kwalifikowanych osób po 40. roku życia poprawa po zabiegu może być trwała, ale ryzyko późniejszej endoprotezoplastyki nie jest zerowe.

    Ważne ograniczenia

    To przegląd badań o zróżnicowanej jakości, a autorzy określili poziom dowodów jako IV. Wyniki pochodziły z różnych grup i procedur, dlatego podane zakresy nie są prognozą dla konkretnej osoby. Artykuł przygotowano na podstawie publicznego abstraktu i metadanych; pełnego tekstu nie analizowano. W PubMed nie odnotowano korekty ani wycofania tej publikacji podczas weryfikacji.

    Źródło

    Lehman AC, Lee S, Berzolla E, Lezak BA, Youm T. Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome in Patients Aged ≥40 Years Produces Durable Functional Improvement With Moderate Survivorship Compared With Younger Cohorts: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. Opublikowano online 14 września 2026 r. PubMed PMID 42734296.

    English version

    Materiał ma charakter informacyjny i nie zastępuje indywidualnej kwalifikacji do leczenia.

    Opracowanie: Tomasz Poboży - ortopeda.

  • Kolejność objawów — dlaczego ma znaczenie?

    W diagnostyce ortopedycznej liczy się nie tylko to, co boli, lecz także co wydarzyło się najpierw, co pojawiło się później i jak objawy zmieniały się z czasem. Dwie osoby mogą dziś zgłaszać podobny ból i obrzęk, ale zupełnie inna kolejność zdarzeń może prowadzić do innych pytań, innego badania oraz innego doboru obrazowania.

    Lista objawów to za mało

    Sformułowanie „boli, puchnie i czasem przeskakuje” opisuje stan obecny, ale nie pokazuje jego rozwoju. Ważne jest, czy ból zaczął się podczas jednego ruchu, czy narastał przez kilka tygodni. Znaczenie ma też to, czy obrzęk pojawił się po urazie, czy był obecny już wcześniej, a dopiero potem doszło do przeciążenia.

    Chronologia pomaga uporządkować możliwe przyczyny. Nie zastępuje badania i nie daje rozpoznania sama w sobie, lecz pozwala odróżnić objaw pierwotny od skutku ograniczania ruchu, zmiany sposobu chodzenia albo kolejnego przeciążenia.

    Co kolejność może podpowiedzieć?

    Nagły moment czy stopniowe narastanie

    Wyraźny moment urazu kieruje uwagę na mechanizm i obciążenie, które zadziałało na kończynę. Stopniowy początek częściej skłania do pytań o zmianę treningu, pracy, obuwia, zakresu aktywności lub regeneracji. To nadal tylko początek różnicowania: nagły ból nie musi oznaczać zerwania, a dolegliwość narastająca powoli może mieć więcej niż jedną przyczynę.

    Ból, obrzęk i utrata funkcji

    Istotne jest, czy najpierw pojawił się ból, czy ograniczenie ruchu; czy obrzęk narósł od razu, czy dopiero po dalszej aktywności; oraz czy kończyna przestała prawidłowo pracować z powodu bólu, czy mimo niewielkich dolegliwości. Taka kolejność pomaga zaplanować, co trzeba sprawdzić najpierw: kość, stabilność stawu, ścięgno, mięsień, nerw lub ukrwienie.

    Drętwienie lub osłabienie

    Jeżeli zaburzenia czucia albo utrata siły pojawiły się przed bólem, jest to inna informacja niż przejściowe mrowienie po długim ucisku lub obrzęku. Szczególnie ważne jest odnotowanie, czy objawy postępują, obejmują kolejne palce albo towarzyszy im zmiana koloru i temperatury kończyny.

    Jak ortopeda wykorzystuje oś czasu objawów?

    Uporządkowany przebieg objawów pomaga ustalić pilność oceny oraz wybrać badanie odpowiadające konkretnemu pytaniu. Po świeżym urazie pierwszeństwo może mieć RTG i ocena stabilności. Przy przeskakiwaniu zależnym od ruchu przydatne może być badanie dynamiczne, a przy utrzymujących się objawach nerwowych — dokładna ocena czucia, siły i przebiegu nerwu. Nie oznacza to, że każdy taki objaw automatycznie wymaga danego badania.

    Oś czasu ułatwia też ocenę leczenia. Jeżeli po kilku dniach zmniejszył się ból, ale pogłębiło się osłabienie albo pojawiło się nowe drętwienie, nie jest to po prostu „częściowa poprawa”. Nowy objaw może zmienić priorytety i wymagać ponownego badania.

    Chronologia nie jest rozpoznaniem

    Pamięć o przebiegu zdarzeń bywa niedokładna, zwłaszcza po silnym bólu, stresie lub przy kilku urazach jednocześnie. Objawy mogą się również nakładać, a leki przeciwbólowe, unieruchomienie i ograniczenie aktywności zmieniają ich obraz. Dlatego nawet bardzo dokładny opis należy połączyć z badaniem klinicznym, a obrazowanie dobierać do pytania, które pozostało bez odpowiedzi.

    Niepewność diagnostyczna nie zawsze oznacza błąd. W części problemów narządu ruchu dopiero obserwacja kierunku zmian, odpowiedź na bezpiecznie dobrane postępowanie albo kontrolne badanie pozwalają zawęzić rozpoznanie. Ważne jest wtedy jasne ustalenie, co obserwować i kiedy wrócić do oceny.

    Jak przygotować krótką oś czasu?

    1. Zapisz datę lub przybliżony moment początku dolegliwości.
    2. Opisz pierwszą rzecz, którą zauważono: ból, trzask, obrzęk, blokowanie, drętwienie albo utratę siły.
    3. Dodaj kolejność następnych objawów i informację, czy narastały w godzinach, dniach czy tygodniach.
    4. Zaznacz, co zmieniło się po odpoczynku, lekach, ortezie, ćwiczeniach lub powrocie do aktywności.
    5. Wymień nowe objawy, nawet jeśli ból w tym czasie zmalał.

    Nie trzeba tworzyć rozbudowanego dziennika. Kilka dat i krótkich zdań zwykle wystarcza, aby podczas konsultacji nie zgubić najważniejszego porządku zdarzeń.

    Kiedy kolejna obserwacja nie powinna czekać?

    Pilnej oceny wymagają między innymi szybko narastające osłabienie lub drętwienie, zimna, blada albo sina kończyna, widoczna deformacja, niemożność obciążenia po urazie, bardzo silny narastający ból, gorączka z zaczerwienieniem i obrzękiem stawu albo duszność. W takiej sytuacji sporządzenie idealnej osi czasu jest mniej ważne niż szybki kontakt z pomocą medyczną.

    Powiązane materiały

    Źródła

    English version

    Materiał edukacyjny nie zastępuje badania ani indywidualnych zaleceń.

    Opracowanie: Tomasz Poboży - ortopeda.

  • Komórki serca z laboratorium: krok w stronę naprawy serca po zawale

    Ze świata medycyny · Badanie na zwierzętach

    Naukowcy wyhodowali z ludzkich komórek macierzystych skupiska komórek mięśnia sercowego i podali je małpom po zawale. Po trzech miesiącach stwierdzili obecność uporządkowanej ludzkiej tkanki w sercach zwierząt. Zaobserwowali także poprawę pracy serca, której zakres wydawał się zależeć od właściwości użytych komórek. To krok w badaniach nad odbudową uszkodzonego mięśnia sercowego, który w przyszłości mógłby pomóc osobom po zawale. Występowały jednak zaburzenia rytmu związane z przeszczepem, choć z czasem się zmniejszały. Ortopeda śledzący rozwój medycyny regeneracyjnej powinien odróżniać postęp przedkliniczny od dowodów klinicznych: wynik nie dowodzi jeszcze, że ta konkretna metoda jest skuteczna i bezpieczna u ludzi.

    Źródło: Gruh I, Martens A i wsp. Human iPSC-cardiomyocyte-aggregate cell therapy in non-human primates and correlation of heart recovery with contractile and electrophysiological cardiomyocyte properties. Nature Communications, 26 sierpnia 2026 r., 17:9066. Publikacja źródłowa · PubMed. Opracowanie na podstawie publicznego abstraktu i danych bibliograficznych, sprawdzonych 15 września 2026 r.

    Więcej odkryć ze świata medycyny · English version

    Opracowanie: Tomasz Poboży - ortopeda.

  • CAR-T tworzone bezpośrednio w organizmie? Pierwsze wyniki w chorobach autoimmunologicznych

    Badacze opisali wczesne wyniki nowej metody, w której komórki CAR-T mają powstawać bezpośrednio w organizmie pacjenta dzięki wektorowi lentiwirusowemu, zamiast po wcześniejszym pobraniu i modyfikacji komórek w laboratorium. W grupie 16 osób z opornymi na leczenie neurologicznymi chorobami autoimmunologicznymi uzyskano całkowitą deplecję limfocytów B, a autorzy odnotowali wstępną poprawę kliniczną w różnych grupach chorób przy możliwych do opanowania działaniach niepożądanych. To interesujący kierunek, bo mógłby w przyszłości uprościć terapię CAR-T, znaną przede wszystkim z onkologii. Ortopeda śledzący rozwój terapii komórkowych powinien pamiętać, że jest to wczesne doniesienie u niewielkiej liczby chorych, a nie dowód skuteczności porównany w dużym badaniu. Potrzebne są większe, kontrolowane próby, zanim będzie można mówić o standardowym leczeniu.

    Źródło: Cheng Y-H i wsp. Lentiviral In Vivo CD19 CAR T-Cell Therapy in Neurologic Autoimmune Disorders. New England Journal of Medicine. Publikacja online: 2 września 2026. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2603114. Sprawdzono: 15 września 2026. Zakres dostępu: strona artykułu i abstrakt; metadane zweryfikowane w PubMed.

    ← Wróć do „Ze świata medycyny” · English version

    Opracowanie: Tomasz Poboży - ortopeda.

  • Hip Osteonecrosis — Do Bone Marrow Cells Improve Core Decompression Outcomes?

    Polish version: Osteonekroza biodra — czy komórki szpiku poprawiają wynik dekompresji?

    A recent network meta-analysis provides an interesting but not definitive signal: in patients with early or intermediate-stage osteonecrosis of the femoral head, core decompression combined with autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMMNCs) was associated with a lower risk of structural progression on imaging than core decompression alone. The analysis did not, however, show convincingly that this strategy reduces the number of patients who later require total hip arthroplasty.

    Why is this study important?

    Before collapse of the articular surface, the main objective in femoral head osteonecrosis is to preserve the native joint. Core decompression is intended to create conditions for revascularization and bone remodeling, but its outcomes are variable. Cell-based material derived from bone marrow has therefore been used for years in an attempt to enhance the effect of decompression.

    The difficulty is that “cell therapy” covers biologically different products. The new analysis distinguished, among other strategies, autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMMNCs) from bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC). This distinction matters clinically: a result obtained with one preparation should not automatically be generalized to another.

    Question and methodology

    The authors performed a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized trials. Six databases and trial registries were searched through 6 August 2026. Eligible participants were adults with imaging-confirmed early or intermediate-stage osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

    Five strategies were compared: conservative treatment, core decompression (CD) alone, CD with BMMNCs, CD with BMAC, and CD with autologous osteoblastic cells. Two clinically relevant outcomes were assessed: structural/radiographic progression and conversion to total hip arthroplasty.

    The network included nine independent studies: seven randomized and two quasi-randomized trials. Eight studies contributed data to each of the two main outcomes.

    Results

    The clearest signal concerned progression on imaging. Compared with core decompression alone, CD+BMMNC was associated with a significantly lower risk of structural progression (OR 0.02; 95% credible interval 0.000–0.31). The authors rated the certainty of this comparison as moderate using GRADE.

    BMMNCs ranked first for both radiographic progression and conversion to arthroplasty. That ranking should not be read as proof of superiority. For later THA, all comparisons involving BMMNCs were directionally favorable, but the credible intervals included no effect. The certainty of evidence for this endpoint was low.

    The BMAC-versus-BMMNC comparison was also notable: the estimate suggested a greater risk of progression with BMAC than with BMMNC, but the credible interval was extremely wide (OR 51.77; 95% CrI 1.95–5795.12). Such a wide interval is primarily a marker of sparse data and substantial uncertainty, not a basis for claiming that one preparation is “dozens of times worse” than another.

    Clinical interpretation for an orthopaedic surgeon

    The most practical message is that cell-based strategies should not be treated as a single intervention. In this analysis, the most consistent signal for structural preservation was seen with BMMNCs used together with core decompression.

    This may be relevant when considering joint-preserving treatment in carefully selected patients before femoral head collapse. Radiographic progression, however, is an intermediate outcome. What matters more to patients is whether treatment actually delays or prevents total hip replacement, and the new analysis does not yet establish that.

    The biological context of osteonecrosis is also important. Previous material on this site discusses steroid- and alcohol-related mechanisms as well as femoral head osteonecrosis reported after COVID-19. These mechanisms and risk profiles should not be conflated with the efficacy of a particular cell-based adjunct to decompression.

    Limitations

    • The network was based on only nine independent studies, with individual cell-therapy nodes represented by small numbers of trials.
    • Two quasi-randomized studies were included, increasing the risk of bias.
    • Cell preparations differed in collection, processing, cell counts, delivery technique and procedural protocol.
    • Studies differed in disease stage, follow-up duration and handling of patients with bilateral osteonecrosis.
    • The strongest finding concerned progression on imaging rather than the harder clinical endpoint of avoiding total hip arthroplasty.

    What could this change in practice—and what does it not prove?

    The analysis strengthens the argument for identifying the exact cell product used in both research and clinical practice rather than grouping BMMNCs, BMAC and other preparations under one label. In patients selected for core decompression, it also supports further study of BMMNCs as a specific biological adjunct.

    It does not show that every patient with early osteonecrosis should receive cell therapy, that BMMNCs definitely reduce the risk of eventual arthroplasty, or that BMAC is ineffective. Larger multicenter trials are needed, using standardized preparations and procedures, disease-stage stratification and long-term follow-up.

    References

    1. Konarski W, Poboży T, Konarska K, Śliwczyński A, Kotela I, Hordowicz M, Krakowiak J. Osteonecrosis Related to Steroid and Alcohol Use—An Update on Pathogenesis. Healthcare. 2023;11(13):1846. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11131846.
    2. Guo Y, Li J, Lu B, et al. Comparative effects of core decompression combined with autologous cell-based strategies on structural outcomes in early-stage osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-026-07218-z.
    3. Poboży T, Poboży K, Domańska-Poboża J, Konarski W. Impact of COVID-19 on the Development of Femoral Head Avascular Necrosis: A Systematic Review. Medical Sciences. 2026. DOI: 10.3390/medsci14030372.
    4. Niu Q, Yang X, Liu X, Yang F, He W. Comparative efficacy and safety of core decompression, cell-based therapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, extracorporeal shock wave therapy, and combined regimens for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a network meta-analysis. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2026;14:1876711. DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2026.1876711.

    Related resources

    For patients: Hip Conditions. For clinicians: Research Updates, Literature and EBM.

    Content prepared by: Tomasz Poboży - orthopaedic surgeon.

  • Distal Biceps Tendon Rupture at the Elbow — When Is Surgery Needed?

    Polish version: Zerwanie ścięgna bicepsa przy łokciu — kiedy potrzebna jest operacja?

    Sudden pain at the front of the elbow after a forceful pull or while lifting, a noticeable “pop,” rapidly developing bruising and a clear loss of strength when turning the palm upward may indicate a distal biceps tendon rupture. A complete rupture in an active person is often treated surgically, but not every injury requires an operation. The extent of the tear, age, activity level, functional demands and coexisting medical conditions all matter.

    What actually tears?

    The biceps brachii ends near the elbow in a strong tendon that attaches to the radius. This tendon contributes not only to elbow flexion but especially to forearm supination—the movement that turns the palm upward.

    Rupture most often occurs when a large sudden load is applied to an extended or extending elbow, for example while trying to catch or hold a falling weight. The injury may be complete or partial.

    What symptoms are typical?

    • sudden pain at the front of the elbow, often during heavy loading,
    • a popping sensation or sound,
    • swelling and bruising in the elbow crease or forearm,
    • a change in the contour of the biceps, with the muscle belly sometimes retracting slightly upward,
    • reduced elbow-flexion strength,
    • particularly noticeable weakness when turning the forearm palm-up, such as when using a screwdriver or loosening a tightly fastened object.

    Pain may improve considerably after several days, but less pain does not mean that the tendon has reattached. With a complete rupture, a persistent loss of strength—especially in supination—may remain.

    Does every rupture look dramatic?

    No. A partial tear may present mainly as pain at the front of the elbow during exertion, without extensive bruising or an obvious change in muscle contour. Persistent pain in this area should therefore not automatically be labelled as tennis elbow or golfer’s elbow.

    Tennis elbow usually causes pain on the lateral side of the elbow, while golfer’s elbow is typically medial. Pain directly at the back of the elbow has a different differential diagnosis again. The location and mechanism of symptoms are therefore important.

    How is a distal biceps tendon rupture diagnosed?

    The starting point is the history and clinical examination. The clinician assesses the contour of the muscle, bruising, elbow-flexion and supination strength, and uses tests aimed at tendon continuity, including the Hook test.

    Ultrasound

    Ultrasound can rapidly assess tendon continuity, the site of injury, retraction of the torn end and some partial tears. The distal biceps tendon is technically demanding to examine because of its deep position and twisted course, so operator experience matters.

    MRI

    MRI is particularly useful when the clinical picture or ultrasound findings are inconclusive, when a partial tear is suspected, or when the degree of retraction and other structures around the elbow need more detailed assessment. A patient with a clinically typical complete rupture does not necessarily need MRI as the first diagnostic test.

    When can non-operative treatment be reasonable?

    Non-operative treatment can be appropriate for some partial tears, for people with relatively low strength demands, or when the risks of surgery are greater than the expected benefit. Initial management includes reducing load and controlling pain, followed by gradual restoration of movement and strengthening.

    The possibility of persistent weakness should be understood. Meta-analyses of complete ruptures have found that operative treatment provides greater average flexion strength and, in particular, greater supination strength than non-operative care. Most of this evidence is observational, however, and the non-operative groups were much smaller, so the decision should not be reduced to a single percentage from a pooled analysis.

    When does an orthopaedic surgeon consider surgery?

    Tendon repair is most often considered for a complete rupture in an active patient who wants to recover as much elbow-flexion and forearm-supination strength as possible. This is especially relevant for people who perform physical work, strength training or sports that place substantial demands on the upper limb.

    Assessment should not be postponed for many weeks simply because the pain has improved. Over time, the torn tendon may retract and scar, making primary repair more difficult. Chronic cases may occasionally require a more complex reconstruction using a graft.

    Surgery also carries risks, including temporary sensory disturbance from irritation of cutaneous nerves and, less commonly, motor nerve injury, heterotopic ossification or loss of motion. The expected gain in strength therefore needs to be weighed against the risks of the procedure.

    What does return to activity look like?

    After tendon repair, the reattachment is initially protected while movement is restored gradually. Strengthening is introduced later according to the surgeon’s protocol and progress of healing. Return to heavy loading is usually measured in months rather than weeks.

    In a systematic review of 42 studies involving more than 1,000 patients after surgical repair, about 91% returned to sport, with a mean time to return of approximately 6 months. These are pooled figures from very different patient groups and should not be treated as a fixed deadline for an individual patient.

    When is urgent assessment needed?

    After a recent injury suspicious for tendon rupture, orthopaedic assessment should be arranged without unnecessary delay, particularly after a characteristic pop, extensive bruising or a clear loss of strength. More urgent medical attention is warranted if there is increasing numbness or weakness of the hand, a cold or pale hand, abnormal pulses, very rapid severe swelling, an open wound, or an injury in which a fracture is also suspected.

    Key takeaways

    A distal biceps tendon rupture is different from the common overuse disorders that cause elbow pain. In an active patient with a complete rupture, surgery often offers a better chance of restoring strength, especially forearm supination. Non-operative treatment remains a reasonable option in selected cases. The key is to identify the type of injury promptly and match treatment to the patient’s actual functional needs.

    References

    1. Looney AM, Day J, Bodendorfer BM, et al. Operative vs. nonoperative treatment of distal biceps ruptures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022;31(4):e169–e189. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.12.001.
    2. Deschrijver M, Hautekiet A, Steyaert A, De Muynck M, Luypaert E. Distal biceps tendon ruptures: more efficient diagnostics for a better outcome. Acta Orthop Belg. 2022;88(1):160–167. DOI: 10.52628/88.1.20.
    3. Cuzzolin M, Secco D, Guerra E, et al. Operative Versus Nonoperative Management for Distal Biceps Brachii Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(10):23259671211037311. DOI: 10.1177/23259671211037311.
    4. Boufadel P, Daher M, Lopez R, et al. Return to Sport After Distal Biceps Tendon Repair: A Systematic Review. Am J Sports Med. 2025;53(7):1769–1778. DOI: 10.1177/03635465241295618.

    ← Injuries and fractures: patient guide

    Content prepared by: Tomasz Poboży - orthopaedic surgeon.

  • Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields for Foot and Ankle CRPS — Do They Really Help?

    Polish version: Pola elektromagnetyczne w CRPS stopy — czy naprawdę pomagają?

    A randomized trial published on 9 September 2026 provides a positive signal for one specific pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) protocol used as an adjunct to exercise in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type I (CRPS-I) affecting the foot or ankle. Pain and functional scores were better in the PEMF group than with exercise alone through 12 months. The trial, however, included only 32 patients, used no sham procedure and no blinding, and enrolled patients after previous neridronate treatment. The device was supplied by its manufacturer, which also covered the publication fee, and two co-authors were employed by the company. The result is therefore interesting, but not strong enough to establish PEMF as a new standard treatment for CRPS.

    Why is this study of interest?

    CRPS-I remains one of the more difficult problems after limb injury or surgery. The clinical picture may include pain that is disproportionate to the original event, swelling, sensory disturbance, vasomotor and sweating abnormalities, and progressive loss of function. Treatment is usually multimodal, while the quality of evidence supporting many physical modalities remains low.

    PEMF is not a new concept in CRPS. Earlier studies were small and did not show a convincing clinical effect. A positive randomized trial focused specifically on the foot and ankle, with follow-up extending to one year, therefore deserves attention—particularly because an earlier randomized study in hand CRPS-I found no added benefit from PEMF beyond rehabilitation.

    Study question and methods

    Covelli and colleagues enrolled 32 adults with CRPS-I of the foot or ankle. All had previously received an initial course of intravenous neridronate. Patients were then randomized to one of two strategies:

    • PEMF at 1.5 mT and 75 Hz for 4 hours per day for 60 days, together with exercise for 30 minutes per day for 6 weeks,
    • the same exercise program alone.

    Assessments were performed at 3, 6 and 12 months. Outcomes included pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS), the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot score, allodynia and hyperalgesia, pain during passive movement, swelling, the Roles and Maudsley score, and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

    The public trial registry describes a parallel randomized design without blinding. No sham device was used, so the specific effect of electromagnetic stimulation could not be separated from expectation effects associated with receiving an additional treatment.

    Results

    Pain decreased and AOFAS scores improved from baseline in both groups at every follow-up point. The investigators also reported statistically significant advantages for PEMF over control at 3, 6 and 12 months for both VAS pain and AOFAS scores.

    Resolution of allodynia, hyperalgesia and pain during passive movement was also more frequent in the PEMF group. At 3 months, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use was lower, while Roles and Maudsley scores were more favorable at 6 and 12 months.

    These findings are encouraging, but statistical significance alone does not show how large a benefit patients actually experienced. In such a small trial, absolute between-group differences, their uncertainty and their relationship to a clinically important change are particularly relevant. The result should not be reduced to the simple statement that “PEMF works for CRPS.”

    Clinical interpretation for an orthopaedic surgeon

    The persistence of the signal through 12 months is the most notable finding. If confirmed in a larger sham-controlled trial, it could suggest that a defined PEMF protocol may be a useful adjunct to rehabilitation in selected patients with lower-limb CRPS-I.

    The scope of that conclusion must remain narrow. The study evaluated specific device parameters, a specific anatomical distribution of CRPS, and patients who had already received neridronate. The findings cannot automatically be generalized to other PEMF devices, other field strengths or frequencies, upper-limb CRPS, CRPS type II, or treatment without concurrent rehabilitation.

    This distinction matters because a 2022 randomized trial by Cömertoğlu and colleagues involving 32 people with hand CRPS-I found no additional benefit from PEMF over a conventional rehabilitation program for any assessed outcome. The protocols differed in field parameters, anatomical site and treatment duration, so that earlier study does not directly contradict the new result. It does, however, show that efficacy has not been established for PEMF devices as a class.

    Key limitations

    • Very small sample: 32 patients can generate a clinically interesting signal, but this is not enough for a stable estimate of efficacy and safety across the heterogeneous CRPS population.
    • No blinding or sham treatment: the experimental group received an obvious additional intervention, while several outcomes were subjective.
    • Selected population: all patients had previously received neridronate, limiting generalizability to other treatment pathways.
    • Intensive protocol: 4 hours of treatment every day for 60 days may be difficult to reproduce in routine practice and makes adherence an important issue.
    • Multiple outcomes: with few participants and numerous comparisons, the risk of overinterpreting isolated positive findings increases.
    • Manufacturer relationship: IGEA supplied the devices and funded the publication fee; two co-authors were company employees. The authors declared no conflict of interest, but these relationships should still be considered when interpreting the findings.

    What could this change in practice—and what does it not prove?

    At present, the study primarily supports the need for a larger multicenter trial with sham treatment, blinded outcome assessment and a prespecified minimal clinically important difference. Future studies should also examine CRPS duration, the precipitating event, previous treatment and actual exposure to PEMF separately.

    The trial does not show that PEMF should enter routine CRPS care, does not establish a class effect irrespective of device parameters, and does not justify replacing early diagnosis, graded limb use, functional rehabilitation or multidisciplinary pain management. It is best viewed as a positive signal that requires independent confirmation in an area where previous evidence has been uncertain or negative.

    References

    1. Covelli I, Setti S, De Terlizzi F, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) in complex regional pain syndrome type I (CRPS-I) of the foot: a randomised controlled trial. J Orthop Traumatol. Published 9 September 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s10195-026-00966-y.
    2. Cömertoğlu İ, Güneş S, Elhan AH, Üstüner E, Kutlay Ş, Küçükdeveci AA. Effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in the management of complex regional pain syndrome type 1: A randomized-controlled trial. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2022;68(1):107–116. DOI: 10.5606/tftrd.2022.9074.
    3. Smart KM, Ferraro MC, Wand BM, O’Connell NE. Physiotherapy for pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) types I and II. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;5:CD010853. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010853.pub3.

    ← Research updates, literature and EBM

    Content prepared by: Tomasz Poboży - orthopaedic surgeon.

  • Pain at the Base of the Thumb — Is It Thumb CMC Osteoarthritis?

    Pain at the base of the thumb that becomes worse when opening a jar, turning a key, pinching, squeezing or using a strong grip is commonly caused by osteoarthritis of the thumb carpometacarpal joint. This is the first CMC joint, between the first metacarpal and the trapezium. Pain location alone is not enough to make the diagnosis, however: de Quervain tenosynovitis, scaphoid injury, disease in adjacent joints and nerve irritation can produce similar symptoms. Most patients start with non-operative treatment.

    Polish version: Ból u podstawy kciuka — czy to zwyrodnienie stawu siodełkowego?

    What is the thumb CMC joint?

    The joint at the base of the thumb has a saddle-shaped geometry that allows a large range of motion. It lets the thumb move away from the palm, oppose the fingers and perform precise pinch. That mobility comes at the cost of substantial loading across a relatively small articular surface.

    Over time, cartilage may deteriorate and the joint can become less stable. Imaging may show joint-space narrowing, osteophytes, subchondral sclerosis and sometimes subluxation of the base of the first metacarpal. An important point is that radiographic severity does not always match pain or functional limitation. Treatment decisions should be based on the patient and the symptoms, not on the X-ray alone.

    What symptoms are typical?

    • pain around the base of the thumb, usually on the palmar or radial side,
    • pain when opening jars, turning keys, fastening buttons, opening packaging or using tools that require pinch,
    • reduced grip and pinch strength,
    • tenderness directly over the joint,
    • sometimes crepitus or clicking with movement,
    • in more advanced cases, visible widening or deformity at the base of the thumb.

    Symptoms often develop gradually. Activities requiring forceful grip or loaded pinch typically provoke more pain than moving the hand freely without resistance.

    How is this different from de Quervain tenosynovitis?

    Both problems may be described simply as “pain on the thumb side,” but the area of greatest tenderness is usually different. With first CMC osteoarthritis, pain is centred at the base of the thumb around the joint. With de Quervain tenosynovitis, pain is typically higher at the radial styloid on the wrist and relates to the tendons of the first extensor compartment.

    After a fall onto the hand, the diagnostic situation is different again. New pain on the radial side can result from a scaphoid fracture and should not automatically be attributed to osteoarthritis.

    How is thumb CMC osteoarthritis diagnosed?

    History and examination

    The pattern of symptoms and the clinical examination are central. Assessment includes the exact pain location, range of motion, thumb stability, grip and pinch strength, and neighbouring joints and tendons. The grind test — axial loading with rotation of the first metacarpal — can support the diagnosis, but it is not a perfect test. A negative result does not exclude thumb-base osteoarthritis.

    X-ray

    Radiographs are useful when bony changes need confirmation, their extent matters, adjacent-joint disease must be considered or surgery is being planned. An X-ray is not necessarily required for every first mild episode with a typical presentation. Even marked radiographic osteoarthritis can coexist with limited symptoms, and the reverse can also occur.

    Ultrasound

    Ultrasound can demonstrate osteophytes, joint fluid and synovial changes while also assessing the soft tissues around the painful region. It can be particularly useful when differentiating joint disease from de Quervain tenosynovitis or another tendon problem. It can also guide a planned injection accurately. Ultrasound is not mandatory in every patient with a typical clinical presentation.

    MRI

    MRI is rarely the first-line test for typical first CMC osteoarthritis. It is more useful when symptoms are atypical, previous tests do not explain the pain, or another bone, ligament or cartilage abnormality is suspected.

    How is thumb-base osteoarthritis treated without surgery?

    Current British Society for Surgery of the Hand guidance supports a stepwise approach. Initial management is multimodal and non-operative, with additional options introduced if symptoms continue to cause meaningful functional limitation.

    Load modification and exercise

    The aim is not to stop using the thumb completely, but to reduce the most provocative loads and improve how everyday tasks are performed. Wider handles, jar-opening aids, using two hands instead of one and limiting prolonged forceful pinch can be helpful.

    Exercises directed at thumb stability, range of motion and hand strength may reduce pain and improve function. Their intensity should be adjusted so that they do not provoke a prolonged flare of symptoms.

    Brace

    A brace that stabilises the base of the thumb can reduce pain during gripping activities. It does not necessarily need to be worn continuously. Some people benefit most during demanding tasks, while others use it for selected periods at rest as well. The type and schedule should match the symptoms and the functional demands on the hand.

    Pain and anti-inflammatory medication

    Medication can reduce pain temporarily but does not restore cartilage. Topical anti-inflammatory preparations are often considered for local symptoms. Oral medication needs individual assessment, particularly in people with gastrointestinal, kidney or cardiovascular disease or those taking anticoagulants.

    Joint injection

    If non-invasive treatment has not provided enough relief, an intra-articular corticosteroid injection may be considered. BSSH guidance places injection at this stage in the pathway. The goal should be realistic: an injection may reduce pain for a period, but it does not regenerate cartilage or remove the mechanical cause of osteoarthritis.

    The evidence for injection efficacy is less consistent than its widespread use might suggest. Systematic reviews have found heterogeneous results, so the decision should take symptom severity, previous treatment and alternatives into account.

    When does an orthopaedic surgeon consider surgery?

    Surgery is considered when pain and functional limitation remain substantial despite appropriate non-operative treatment and continue to interfere with daily life, work or activity. A “bad X-ray” alone is not an indication for surgery.

    One of the most commonly used operations is trapeziectomy, which removes the trapezium. Numerous modifications add ligament reconstruction, suspension of the first metacarpal or tissue interposition. Current BSSH guidance notes that available evidence has not demonstrated an advantage of adding interposition or ligament reconstruction over trapeziectomy alone.

    This does not mean every patient should have the same operation. Procedure selection depends on age, deformity, neighbouring joints, functional demands and surgeon experience. More complex reconstruction should have a specific rationale rather than being performed automatically.

    When should thumb pain be assessed more urgently?

    • severe pain after a fall or other injury, especially with deformity, bruising or inability to use the thumb,
    • rapidly increasing swelling, redness and marked warmth, particularly with fever,
    • new or pronounced numbness or weakness in the hand,
    • a thumb that becomes blue, pale or cold, or other signs of impaired circulation,
    • rapidly progressive unexplained symptoms or involvement of several joints suggesting inflammatory disease.

    Common questions

    Can osteoarthritis be reversed?

    Structural changes in cartilage and bone cannot simply be reversed by exercise, a brace or an injection. Pain and function can nevertheless improve substantially, which is why imaging severity does not determine how well the hand can function.

    Do severe X-ray changes mean I need surgery?

    No. The relationship between radiographic severity and symptoms is limited. Surgical decisions are based mainly on pain, loss of function and failure of appropriate previous treatment, with imaging as one part of the decision.

    Is ultrasound always needed before an injection?

    Not in every straightforward case. Ultrasound guidance allows the operator to visualise the needle and adjacent structures and confirm that medication reaches the intended location. It may be particularly useful with atypical anatomy, previous unsuccessful injections or diagnostic uncertainty.

    References

    1. Gangopadhyay S, Jansen V, Khor WS, Gardiner MD, Burchette D, McKenna H. Guideline on managing thumb base osteoarthritis: The British Society for Surgery of the Hand Evidence for Surgical Treatment (BEST) findings and recommendations. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2025;50(5):576–586. DOI: 10.1177/17531934241313206.
    2. Hamasaki T, Laprise S, Harris PG, et al. Efficacy of Nonsurgical Interventions for Trapeziometacarpal (Thumb Base) Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2020;72(12):1719–1735. DOI: 10.1002/acr.24084.
    3. Merritt MM, Roddey TS, Costello C, Olson S. Diagnostic value of clinical grind test for carpometacarpal osteoarthritis of the thumb. J Hand Ther. 2010;23(3):261–267. PMID: 20452743.

    This article is educational and does not replace a medical examination or individual treatment assessment.

    ← Osteoarthritis

    Content prepared by: Tomasz Poboży - orthopaedic surgeon.