...
首页> 外文期刊>Bulletin of Emergency and Trauma >Distal Locked versus Unlocked Intramedullary Nailing in Intertrochanteric Fracture; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Non-Randomized Trials
【24h】

Distal Locked versus Unlocked Intramedullary Nailing in Intertrochanteric Fracture; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Non-Randomized Trials

机译:远端锁定与闭锁髓内髓内骨折;随机和非随机试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Objective: To compare the outcome of distal locked and unlocked intramedullary nailing in patients with intertrochanteric fractures through systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials.? Methods: Randomized or non-randomized controlled studies comparing the effects of unlocked and locked nails for treatment of intertrochanteric fractures were searched using the search strategy of Cochrane collaboration up to April 2019. Four eligible studies involving 691 patients were included. Their methodological quality was assessed, and data were extracted independently for meta-analysis. Results: The results showed that the unlocked group has significantly less operative time (MD: -8.08; 95%CI -11.36 to -4.79; P 0.00001), fluoroscopy time (MD: -7.09, 95%CI -7.09 to -4.79; p0.00001), length of incision (MD: -2.50, 95%CI 2.85 to -2.14; p 0.00001) than the locked group. The complication rate was significantly higher in the locking group (OR: 0.55, 95%CI 0.26 to 1.15; p=0.03). No significant differences were found in the Harris hip score between the two groups (MD: 0.68, 95% CI -0.83 to 2.19, p0.08). Conclusion: The present meta-analysis suggests that intramedullary nailing without distal locking is reliable and acceptable option for treating intertrochanteric fracture. The advantages are reduced operative time, decreased fluoroscopy time, smaller size of incision and decreased complication rate. However, owing to the low-quality evidence currently available, additional high quality Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
机译:目的:通过系统综述和荟萃分析对股骨转孔骨折患者远端锁定和解锁髓内钉的结果进行比较,随机和非随机临床试验进行荟萃分析。方法:采用Cochrane合作的搜索策略,在2019年4月的搜索策略中搜索了随机或非随机对照研究进行了比较解锁和锁定钉治疗闭合剂骨折的影响。包括涉及691名患者的四项合格研究。评估其方法论质量,并独立提取数据以进行Meta分析。结果表明,解锁组具有显着较低的操作时间(MD:-8.08; 95%CI -11.36至-4.79; P <0.00001),透视时间(MD:-7.09,95%CI -7.09至-4.79 ; P <0.00001),切口长度(MD:-2.50,95%CI 2.85至-2.14; P <0.00001)。锁定组(或:0.55,95%CI 0.26至1.15; p = 0.03)并发症率明显高于较高。在两组(MD:0.68,95%CI -0.83至2.19,P <0.08)之间的哈里斯髋髋分数中没有发现显着差异。结论:目前的荟萃分析表明,没有远端锁定的髓内钉是可靠的,可接受的,可接受的是治疗跨转化体骨折。优点减少了操作时间,透视时间减少,切口尺寸较小,并发症率降低。然而,由于目前可用的低质量证据,需要额外的高质量随机对照试验来确认这些发现。

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