Zhang Lei Lei, Zhang Ying, Ma Xianghao, Liu Youwen
Medical Center of Hip, Luoyang Orthopedic Hospital of Henan Province, No. 82, South Qiming Road, 471002, Luoyang, China.
Orthopade. 2017 Nov;46(11):954-962. doi: 10.1007/s00132-017-3473-8.
Various fixation devices have been reported for stabilization of femoral neck fractures. Numerous studies on arthroplasty versus internal fixation devices in the treatment of femoral neck fractures have been performed, but the optimal approach for internal fixation has not been analyzed.
A meta-analysis and system evaluation were performed to compare clinical effects. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple cannulated screws (MCS) with dynamic hip screws (DHS) and analyzed the failure rate of operations, the reoperation rate, and postoperative complications. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences from each trial were pooled using random effects or fixed effects models, depending on study heterogeneity. The analysis was performed using RevMan5.2.
In this meta-analysis, 592 femoral neck fractures from 7 studies were assessed, and the meta-analysis results indicated significant differences in reoperation (RR 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.88, P = 0.008) and failure rate (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.10-4.72, P = 0.03), but no significant differences in the rate of postoperative complications between the MCS group and DHS group.
DHS fixation has a larger skin incision and more soft tissue dissection, but it is associated with lower rates of fixation failure, reoperation, and overall rate of postoperative complications, and its use in elderly patients with osteoporosis is still recommended due to simplicity, efficacy, and high overall success rate. Multicenter RCTs with large samples are needed to better understand the comparative efficacy and safety of MCS and DHS in femoral neck fractures of restricted fracture type.
已有多种固定装置用于股骨颈骨折的稳定治疗。关于关节置换术与内固定装置治疗股骨颈骨折的众多研究已经开展,但尚未对最佳内固定方法进行分析。
进行荟萃分析和系统评价以比较临床效果。我们在PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆和Web of Science中检索了比较多枚空心螺钉(MCS)与动力髋螺钉(DHS)的随机对照试验(RCT),并分析了手术失败率、再次手术率和术后并发症。根据研究异质性,使用随机效应或固定效应模型汇总每个试验的风险比(RR)和均值差异。使用RevMan5.2进行分析。
在这项荟萃分析中,评估了来自7项研究的592例股骨颈骨折,荟萃分析结果表明再次手术(RR 1.44,95%置信区间[CI] 1.10 - 1.88,P = 0.008)和失败率(RR 2.28,95% CI 1.10 - 4.72,P = 0.03)存在显著差异,但MCS组和DHS组术后并发症发生率无显著差异。
DHS固定的皮肤切口更大,软组织剥离更多,但固定失败率、再次手术率和术后总体并发症发生率较低,由于其操作简单、疗效好且总体成功率高,仍建议用于骨质疏松的老年患者。需要开展大样本的多中心RCT,以更好地了解MCS和DHS在特定骨折类型股骨颈骨折中的比较疗效和安全性。