...
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Hip Surgery >Surgical Approaches in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
【24h】

Surgical Approaches in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

机译:初次全髋关节置换术的手术方法:随机对照试验的系统评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), summarizing the available high-quality evidence. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we performed the electronic searches in January 2021. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2021, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (including e-pub ahead of print, in-process, and other non-indexed citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid MEDLINE and Versions) (1946–January 20, 2021), and Embase (1980–January 20, 2021). We limited our search to English language literature. We excluded nonrandomized trials, trials on neck of femur fractures or revision surgery, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Trials that met our inclusion criteria were assessed using a binary outcome measure of whether they reported statistically significant findings. These were then classified according to the intervention groups. A total of 72 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The total number of patients in those trials was 6,728. Only five RCTs (5.9%) reported significant differences between the intervention and the control groups. The largest subgroup of trials was minimally invasive versus standard techniques (18 RCTs) with no significant differences. Standard (lateral, posterior) approaches were compared in 23 RCTs with only 1 RCT reporting significant differences. Thirteen RCTs evaluated mini-incisions, with only 1 RCT reporting significant differences, and the remaining 18 RCTs evaluated variations of surgical approaches and interventions, with 3 RCTs reporting significant differences. The evidence reviewed indicates that for the vast majority of patients, a standard THA approach familiar to the surgeon leads to comparable outcomes. Level of evidence is II.
机译:本研究的目的是提供一个概述随机对照试验(相关的)在初次全髋手术方法关节成形术(那),总结了高质量的证据。系统评价和报告项目荟萃分析(棱镜)的指导方针,我们执行2021年1月的电子搜索。搜索Cochrane中心登记对照试验(2021年,问题1),奥维德MEDLINE(包括的正式发表前电子版,进程内其他非索引引用奥维德MEDLINE日报》奥维德MEDLINE和版本)(1946 - 1月20日有限的英语我们的搜索文学。试验在股骨颈骨折或修订手术、系统评价和荟萃分析。试验满足我们的入选标准使用二进制结果的评估他们是否具有统计学意义发现。干预组。入选标准。患者在这些试验是在6728年。相关(5.9%)显著差异报告干预和控制之间的组织。最大的子群试验是最低限度侵入性和标准技术(18相关)没有显著差异。(后外侧)方法进行了比较23日相关的只有1个随机对照试验报告意义重大的差异。微创更好,只有1个随机对照试验报告显著差异,其余18相关的评估变化的手术方法和干预,3相关的报告显著差异。表明,对于绝大多数的患者,一个标准的方法熟悉外科医生会导致类似的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
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