首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery Research >RETRACTED ARTICLE: A meta-analysis of external fixator versus intramedullary nails for open tibial fracture fixation
【24h】

RETRACTED ARTICLE: A meta-analysis of external fixator versus intramedullary nails for open tibial fracture fixation

机译:收回的文章:外固定器与髓内钉进行胫骨开放性骨折固定的荟萃分析

获取原文
       

摘要

Background To compare the clinical outcomes of external fixator (EF) and intramedullary nails (IN) in the treatment of open tibial fractures. Methods We searched seven electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, Cochrane library, CNKI, and CBM) for trials of tibial fracture fixation published from 1980 to 2013. The indicators including postoperative infection, malunion, nonunion, soft tissue injury, delayed healing, and healing time were used for quantitative outcome assessments. Results A total of nine trials involving 532 patients (EF, n =?253; IN, n =?279) with open tibia fractures were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that the patients undergoing IN had lower incidence of postoperative infection (risk radio [RR]?=?3.85; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 2.67–5.54; P Conclusion In conclusion, the use of IN is more effective than EF and may be considered as first-line approach in fixation of open tibial fractures.
机译:背景为了比较外固定架(EF)和髓内钉(IN)在治疗胫骨开放性骨折中的临床效果。方法我们搜索了七个电子数据库(PubMed,MEDLINE,EMBASE,OVID,Cochrane库,CNKI和CBM),以研究1980年至2013年发表的胫骨骨折固定术。这些指标包括术后感染,畸形愈合,骨不连,软组织损伤,延迟愈合和愈合时间用于定量结果评估。结果该荟萃分析共纳入9项试验,涉及532例胫骨开放性骨折的患者(EF,n =?253; IN,n =?279)。结果表明,接受IN的患者术后感染发生率较低(危险放射[RR]?=?3.85; 95%置信区间[CI],2.67-5.54; P结论)总之,使用IN比治疗更有效。 EF,并且可以被认为是胫骨开放性骨折固定的一线方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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