Yuan Xiaoming, Yao Qi, Ni Jie, Peng Libin, Yu Daxin
Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100038, China.
Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100038, China. Email:
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2014 Mar 25;94(11):836-9.
To assess the efficacies of proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) versus dynamic hip screw (DHS) for intertrochanteric fracture in elders.
The databases of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI and WANFANG were searched for the relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to May 18, 2013. After quality evaluation and data extraction by two authors independently, meta-analyses were performed with the RevMan5.1 software. And the levels of evidence were evaluated by the GRADEprofile 3.6 software.
A total of 17 studies (n = 1 344) were included and there were 656 patients in PFNA group and 688 in DHS respectively. Meta-analyses showed that, as compared with DHS, PFNA could significantly decrease fixation failure rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.12, 0.57], P = 0.0008), reduce average fracture healing time (weighted mean difference (WMD) = -15.11, 95%CI = [-24.36, -5.85], P = 0.001), improve excellent and good rate for Harris score (OR = 0.29, 95%CI = [0.15, 0.56], P = 0.0002), yield a higher Harris score (WMD = 6.88, 95%CI = [0.96, 12.80], P = 0.02) and reduce the rate of coxa vara (OR = 0.40, 95%CI = [0.18,0.92], P = 0.03). However, there was no statistical significance in 1-year mortality, postoperative nonunion and delayed union, postoperative femoral head necrosis, postoperative femoral fractures or femoral head necrosis. The importance of outcomes was "critical". And the level of evidences based on the GRADE approach was from "very low" to "low".
PFNA is superior to DHS. Due to the limitations of the included studies, more large-sample and high-quality RCTs are required. And subgroup analysis based on fracture types should be performed.
评估股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)与动力髋螺钉(DHS)治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的疗效。
检索截至2013年5月18日的PubMed、Embase、CENTRAL、CBM、CNKI和万方数据库中的相关随机对照试验(RCT)。由两位作者独立进行质量评估和数据提取后,使用RevMan5.1软件进行荟萃分析。并采用GRADEprofile 3.6软件评估证据水平。
共纳入17项研究(n = 1344),PFNA组656例患者,DHS组688例患者。荟萃分析显示,与DHS相比,PFNA可显著降低内固定失败率(比值比(OR)= 0.26,95%置信区间(CI)= [0.12, 0.57],P = 0.0008),缩短平均骨折愈合时间(加权均数差(WMD)= -15.11,95%CI = [-24.36, -5.85],P = 0.001),提高Harris评分优良率(OR = 0.29,95%CI = [0.15, 0.56],P = 0.0002),获得更高的Harris评分(WMD = 6.88,95%CI = [0.96, 12.80],P = 0.02),并降低髋内翻发生率(OR = 0.40,95%CI = [0.18, 0.92],P = 0.03)。然而,1年死亡率、术后骨不连和延迟愈合、术后股骨头坏死、术后股骨骨折或股骨头坏死方面无统计学意义。结局的重要性为“关键”。基于GRADE方法的证据水平为“极低”至“低”。
PFNA优于DHS。由于纳入研究的局限性,需要更多大样本、高质量的RCT,并应进行基于骨折类型的亚组分析。