Anglen Jeffrey, Kyle Richard F, Marsh John Lawrence, Virkus Walter W, Watters William C, Keith Michael Warren, Turkelson Charles M, Wies Janet L, Boyer Kevin M
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009 Jul;17(7):465-72. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200907000-00007.
Thirty-three peer-reviewed studies met the inclusion criteria for the Overview. Criteria were framed by three key questions regarding indications for the use of locking plates, their effectiveness in comparison with traditional nonlocking plates, and their cost-effectiveness. The studies were divided into seven applications: distal radius, proximal humerus, distal femur, periprosthetic femur, tibial plateau (AO/OTA type C), proximal tibia (AO/OTA type A or C), and distal tibia. Patient enrollment criteria were recorded to determine indications for use of locking plates, but the published studies do not consistently report the same enrollment criteria. Regarding effectiveness, there were no statistically significant differences between locking plates and nonlocking plates for patient-oriented outcomes, adverse events, or complications. The literature search did not identify any peer-reviewed studies that address the cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of locking plates.
33项经过同行评审的研究符合该综述的纳入标准。标准由关于锁定钢板使用指征、与传统非锁定钢板相比的有效性以及成本效益的三个关键问题构成。这些研究分为七种应用：桡骨远端、肱骨近端、股骨远端、假体周围股骨、胫骨平台（AO/OTA C型）、胫骨近端（AO/OTA A型或C型）以及胫骨远端。记录了患者纳入标准以确定锁定钢板的使用指征，但已发表的研究并未始终报告相同的纳入标准。关于有效性，在以患者为导向的结果、不良事件或并发症方面，锁定钢板和非锁定钢板之间没有统计学上的显著差异。文献检索未发现任何探讨锁定钢板成本效益或成本效用的同行评审研究。
