Wang Jia, Meng Xiao-Hui, Guo Zhi-Ming, Wu Ying-Hua, Zhao Jia-Guo
From the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (JW, Z-MG, Y-HW), Tianjin Hospital; Graduate School (X-HM), Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine; and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (J-GZ), Clinical College of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Mar;94(11):e595. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000595.
Displaced midshaft clavicle fractures are frequent injuries. There are 3 treatment methods including conservative treatment, plate fixation, and intramedullary pin fixation. However, which is the best treatment remains a topic of debate.To establish the optimum treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures, we did a network meta-analysis to compare 3 treatments in terms of postoperative nonunion and infection.We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) until the end of October 2014. Two investigators independently reviewed the abstract and full text of eligible studies and extracted information. We used WinBUGS 1.4 (Imperial College School of Medicine at St Mary's, London) to perform our Bayesian network meta-analysis. We used the graphical tools in STATA12 (StataCorp, Texas) to present the results of statistical analyses of WinBUGS14. Nonunion and infection were presented as odd ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also presented the results using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). A higher SUCRA value suggests better results for respective treatment method.Thirteen RCTs were included in our network meta-analysis, with a total of 894 patients randomized to receive 1 of 3 treatments. Nonunion rates were 0.9%, 2.4%, and 11.4% for intramedullary pin fixation, plate fixation, and conservative method, respectively. Nonunion occurred more commonly in patients treated with conservative method than in patients treated with either plate fixation (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05-0.46) or intramedullary pin fixation (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.01-0.50). There was no significant difference between plate and intramedullary pin fixation in nonunion (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 0.31-17.27). Furthermore, SUCRA probabilities were 87.8%, 62.0%, and 0.2% for intramedullary pin fixation, plate fixation, and conservative method, respectively. Infection rates were 3.6% and 3.9% for intramedullary pin fixation and plate fixation, respectively. There was no significant difference between plate and intramedullary pin fixation in infection (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 0.31-17.27). SUCRA probabilities were 46.5% and 8.5% for intramedullary pin and plate fixation, respectively.Our network meta-analysis suggested that intramedullary pin fixation is the optimum treatment method for displaced midshaft clavicle fracture because of the low probabilities of nonunion and infection.
锁骨中段移位骨折是常见的损伤。有三种治疗方法,包括保守治疗、钢板固定和髓内针固定。然而,哪种是最佳治疗方法仍存在争议。为确定锁骨中段移位骨折的最佳治疗方法,我们进行了一项网状Meta分析,以比较三种治疗方法在术后骨不连和感染方面的情况。我们检索了PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和Embase,查找截至2014年10月底的相关随机对照试验(RCT)。两名研究者独立审查符合条件研究的摘要和全文并提取信息。我们使用WinBUGS 1.4(伦敦圣玛丽医院帝国理工学院医学院)进行贝叶斯网状Meta分析。我们使用STATA12(德克萨斯州StataCorp公司)中的图形工具展示WinBUGS14的统计分析结果。骨不连和感染以比值比(OR)及95%置信区间(CI)表示。我们还使用累积排序曲线下面积(SUCRA)展示结果。SUCRA值越高表明相应治疗方法的效果越好。我们的网状Meta分析纳入了13项RCT,共894例患者被随机分配接受三种治疗方法中的一种。髓内针固定、钢板固定和保守治疗的骨不连发生率分别为0.9%、2.4%和11.4%。保守治疗的患者发生骨不连的情况比钢板固定(OR,0.18;95%CI,0.05 - 0.46)或髓内针固定(OR,0.12;95%CI,0.01 - 0.50)的患者更常见。钢板固定和髓内针固定在骨不连方面无显著差异(OR,3.64;95%CI,0.31 - 17.27)。此外,髓内针固定、钢板固定和保守治疗的SUCRA概率分别为87.8%、62.0%和0.2%。髓内针固定和钢板固定的感染率分别为3.6%和3.9%。钢板固定和髓内针固定在感染方面无显著差异(OR,3.64;95%CI,0.31 - 17.27)。髓内针固定和钢板固定的SUCRA概率分别为46.5%和8.5%。我们的网状Meta分析表明,由于骨不连和感染的概率较低,髓内针固定是锁骨中段移位骨折的最佳治疗方法。