成人尺骨鹰嘴骨折的手术治疗干预措施。

Surgical interventions for treating fractures of the olecranon in adults.

作者信息

Matar Hosam E, Ali Amjid A, Buckley Simon, Garlick Nicholas I, Atkinson Henry D

机构信息

Speciality Registrar, Trauma and Orthopaedics, Mersey Rotation, Liverpool, UK.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Nov 26;2014(11):CD010144. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010144.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Fractures of the olecranon (the bony tip of the elbow) account for approximately 1% of all upper extremity fractures. Surgical intervention is often required to restore elbow function. Two key methods of surgery are tension band wire fixation and plate fixation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of different surgical interventions in the treatment of olecranon fractures in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (22 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to September week 2 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 19 September 2014), trial registers, conference proceedings and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs that compared different surgical interventions for the treatment of olecranon fractures in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. The primary outcomes of this review were function, pain and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six small trials involving 244 adults with olecranon fractures. Of these, four were RCTs and two were quasi-RCTs; both of were at high risk of selection bias. All six trials were at high risk of performance bias, reflecting lack of blinding, and four trials were at high risk of detection bias. The quality of the evidence for most outcomes was generally very low because of limitations in study design and implementation, and either imprecision of the results or inadequate outcome measures. Thus, we are very uncertain about the estimates of effect.One trial (41 participants) comparing plate fixation with standard tension band wiring provided very low quality evidence at 16 to 86 weeks' follow-up of a better clinical outcome after plate fixation (good outcome (little pain or loss of elbow motion): 19/22 versus 9/19, risk ratio (RR) 1.82 favouring plate fixation, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 3.01). There was very low quality evidence of less symptomatic prominent metalwork after plate fixation (1/22 versus 8/19; RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.79). The results for other adverse effects (infection and delayed or non-union) were inconclusive. Evidence is pending from a newly (September 2014) completed trial (67 participants) making the same comparison.Four trials compared four different modified techniques of tension band wiring (i.e. additional intramedullary screw fixation, biodegradable pins, Netz pins and cable pin system) versus standard tension band wiring. There was very low quality evidence of little difference at six to 14 months in function assessed by a non-validated scoring tool from the addition of an intramedullary screw. However, there were fewer cases of metalwork prominence in the intramedullary screw group (1/15 versus 8/15; RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.49; one trial; 30 participants). There was very low quality evidence from one trial (25 participants) of little difference in subjectively or objectively assessed good outcome at a mean of 20 months between tension band wiring with biodegradable implants versus metal implants. There were no adverse events, either non-union or sinus or fluid accumulation, reported. All 10 participants in the metalwork group had an extra operation to remove their metalwork at one year. One trial, which did not report on function or pain, provided very low quality evidence of lower rates of metalwork for any reason or for symptoms after Netz pin tension band wiring compared with standard tension band wiring (11/21 with Netz pin versus 17/25 with standard tension band wiring; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.26; 46 participants); this evidence also supports the possibility of higher rates of metalwork removal for Netz pins. Two intra-operative complications occurred in the Netz pin group. The fourth trial, which compared the cable pin system with standard procedure, found low quality evidence that cable pin improved functional outcome at a mean of 21 months (Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), range 0 to 100: best outcome: mean difference (MD) 7.89 favouring cable pin, 95% CI 3.14 to 12.64; one trial; 62 participants). It also found low quality evidence of fewer postoperative complications in the cable pin group (1/30 with cable pin system versus 7/32 standard tension band wiring; RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.17), although the evidence did not rule out the converse.One trial provided very low quality evidence of similar patient-reported function using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (0 to 100: worst function) at two or more years after fixation using a novel olecranon memory connector (OMC) compared with locking plate fixation (MD -0.70 favouring OMC, 95% CI -4.20 to 2.80; 40 participants). The only adverse event was a superficial infection in the locking plate group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions on the relative effects of the surgical interventions evaluated by the included trials. Further evidence, including patient-reported data, on the relative effects of plate versus tension band wiring is already pending from one recently completed RCT. Further RCTs, using good quality methods and reporting validated patient-reported measures of function, pain and activities of daily living at set follow-ups, are needed, including checking positive findings such as those relating to the use of an intramedullary screw and the cable pin system. Such trials should also include the systematic assessment of complications, further treatment including routine removal of metalwork and use of resources.

摘要

背景

尺骨鹰嘴(肘部的骨性尖端)骨折约占所有上肢骨折的1%。通常需要手术干预来恢复肘部功能。两种主要的手术方法是张力带钢丝固定和钢板固定。

目的

评估不同手术干预措施治疗成人尺骨鹰嘴骨折的效果(益处和危害)。

检索方法

我们检索了Cochrane骨、关节和肌肉创伤组专业注册库(2014年9月22日)、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL,2014年第8期)、MEDLINE(1946年至2014年9月第2周)、EMBASE(1980年至2014年9月19日)、试验注册库、会议论文集以及文章的参考文献列表。

入选标准

比较不同手术干预措施治疗成人尺骨鹰嘴骨折的随机对照试验(RCT)和半随机对照试验。

数据收集与分析

两位综述作者独立进行研究选择、偏倚风险评估和数据提取。本综述的主要结局是功能、疼痛和不良事件。

主要结果

我们纳入了6项小型试验,涉及244例成人尺骨鹰嘴骨折患者。其中,4项为RCT,2项为半随机对照试验;两者均存在较高的选择偏倚风险。所有6项试验均存在较高的实施偏倚风险,这反映出缺乏盲法,且4项试验存在较高的检测偏倚风险。由于研究设计和实施的局限性,以及结果的不精确性或结局测量指标不充分,大多数结局的证据质量普遍很低。因此,我们对效应估计值非常不确定。一项试验(41名参与者)比较了钢板固定与标准张力带钢丝固定,在16至86周的随访中提供了质量极低的证据,表明钢板固定后的临床结局更好(良好结局(轻微疼痛或肘部活动丧失):19/22对比9/19;风险比(RR)为1.82,支持钢板固定,95%置信区间(CI)为1.10至3.01)。有质量极低的证据表明钢板固定后有症状的金属植入物突出较少(1/22对比8/19;RR 0.11,95%CI 0.01至0.79)。其他不良反应(感染、延迟愈合或不愈合)的结果尚无定论。一项新完成的试验(2014年9月,67名参与者)正在进行相同的比较,证据尚未得出。四项试验比较了四种不同的改良张力带钢丝固定技术(即额外的髓内螺钉固定、可生物降解销钉、Netz销钉和缆索销钉系统)与标准张力带钢丝固定。有质量极低的证据表明,在6至14个月时,通过未经验证的评分工具评估,添加髓内螺钉后的功能差异不大。然而,髓内螺钉组的金属植入物突出病例较少(1/15对比8/15;RR 2.00,95%CI 1.15至3.49;一项试验;30名参与者)。一项试验(25名参与者)有质量极低的证据表明,在平均20个月时,使用可生物降解植入物的张力带钢丝固定与金属植入物相比,主观或客观评估的良好结局差异不大。未报告有不愈合、窦道或积液等不良事件。金属植入物组的所有10名参与者在一年时都进行了额外的手术取出金属植入物。一项试验未报告功能或疼痛情况,提供了质量极低的证据,表明与标准张力带钢丝固定相比,Netz销钉张力带钢丝固定因任何原因或出现症状而取出金属植入物的发生率较低(Netz销钉组11/21,标准张力带钢丝固定组17/25;RR 0.77,95%CI 0.47至1.26;46名参与者);该证据也支持Netz销钉取出金属植入物的发生率可能更高。Netz销钉组发生了2例术中并发症。第四项试验比较了缆索销钉系统与标准手术方法,发现质量低的证据表明缆索销钉在平均21个月时改善了功能结局(梅奥肘关节功能评分(MEPS),范围0至100:最佳结局:平均差异(MD)为7.89,支持缆索销钉,95%CI为3.14至12.64;一项试验;62名参与者)。还发现质量低 的证据表明缆索销钉组术后并发症较少(缆索销钉系统组1/30,标准张力带钢丝固定组7/32;RR 0.15,95%CI 0.02至1.17),尽管该证据并未排除相反情况。一项试验提供了质量极低的证据,表明使用新型尺骨鹰嘴记忆连接器(OMC)固定后两年或更长时间,与锁定钢板固定相比,患者报告的功能相似(使用手臂、肩部和手部功能障碍问卷(0至100:最差功能):MD为 -0.70,支持OMC,95%CI为 -4.20至2.80;40名参与者)。唯一的不良事件是锁定钢板组发生了浅表感染。

作者结论

纳入试验所评估的手术干预措施的相对效果,目前尚无足够证据得出有力结论。一项最近完成的RCT已经在等待关于钢板与张力带钢丝固定相对效果的进一步证据,包括患者报告的数据。需要进一步开展RCT,采用高质量方法,并在设定的随访中报告经过验证的患者报告的功能、疼痛和日常生活活动测量指标,包括检验阳性结果,如与使用髓内螺钉和缆索销钉系统相关的结果。此类试验还应包括对并发症的系统评估、进一步治疗,包括常规取出金属植入物以及资源利用情况。

引用本文的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索