首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Gap Arthroplasty versus Interpositional Arthroplasty for Temporomandibular Joint Ankylosis: A Meta-Analysis
【2h】

Gap Arthroplasty versus Interpositional Arthroplasty for Temporomandibular Joint Ankylosis: A Meta-Analysis

机译:颞下颌关节强直的间隙置换术与介入置换术的荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Gap arthroplasty (GA) and interpositional arthroplasty (IA) are widely used for the treatment of temporomandibular joint ankylosis (TMJA). However, controversy remains as to whether IA is superior to GA. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Web of science and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for literature regarding these procedures (published from 1946 to July 28, 2014). A study was included in this analysis if it was: (1) a randomized controlled trial or non-randomized observational cohort study; (2) comparing the clinical outcomes between GA and IA with respect to the maximal incisal opening (MIO) and reankylosis; (3) with a follow-up period of at least 12 months. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale Eight non-randomized observational cohort studies with 272 patients were included. All the statistical analyses were performed using the RevMan 5.3 and Stat 12. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in the incidence of reankylosis between the IA group (13/120) and the GA group (29/163) (RR= 0.67, 95% CI=0.38 to 1.16; Z=1.43, p=0.15). The IA group showed a significantly larger MIO than the GA group (MD=1.96, 95% CI=0.21 to 3.72, Z=2.19, p=0.03, I2=0%). In conclusion, patients with TMJA could benefit more from IA than GA, with a larger MIO and a similar incidence of reankylosis. IA shows to be an adequate option in the treatment of TMJA based on the results of maximal incisal opening.
机译:间隙置换术(GA)和介入置换术(IA)被广泛用于治疗颞下颌关节强直(TMJA)。但是,关于IA是否优于GA仍存在争议。在PubMed,EMBASE,Cochrane图书馆,科学网络和中国国家知识基础设施中搜索了有关这些程序的文献(1946年至2014年7月28日出版)。如果是以下情况,则该研究包括在内:(1)随机对照试验或非随机观察性队列研究; (2)比较GA和IA在最大切开(MIO)和再强直方面的临床结果; (3)随访期至少为12个月。根据纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表对纳入研究的方法学质量进行了评估。纳入的八项非随机观察性队列研究涉及272名患者。所有统计分析均使用RevMan 5.3和Stat 12进行。汇总分析显示,IA组(13/120)和GA组(29/163)之间的再血管病发生率无显着差异(RR = 0.67,95) %CI = 0.38至1.16; Z = 1.43,p = 0.15)。 IA组的MIO明显高于GA组(MD = 1.96,95%CI = 0.21至3.72,Z = 2.19,p = 0.03,I 2 = 0%)。总之,TMJA患者比IA可以从IA中受益更多,MIO更大,并且再次发生强直反应的可能性相似。基于最大切开张开的结果,IA显示是治疗TMJA的适当选择。

著录项

  • 期刊名称 other
  • 作者单位
  • 年(卷),期 -1(10),5
  • 年度 -1
  • 页码 e0127652
  • 总页数 12
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号