Suppr超能文献

失败感染性全膝关节置换术后膝关节融合术中外固定与髓内钉固定的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。

External Fixation vs Intramedullary Nailing for Knee Arthrodesis After Failed Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

机构信息

Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom; Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

出版信息

J Arthroplasty. 2018 Apr;33(4):1288-1295. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.10.055. Epub 2017 Nov 8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to compare intramedullary nailing with external fixation for knee arthrodesis after failed infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Primary outcome is radiographic union. Secondary outcomes include recurrent deep infection, revision arthrodesis, and amputation.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes from intramedullary nailing and external fixation in patients with infected TKA undergoing arthrodesis procedures was performed. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were included.

RESULTS

Intramedullary nailing achieves a significantly higher rate of radiographic union compared with external fixation (odds ratio [OR] 5.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.74-9.75, P < .00001) at a mean follow-up of 44.22 months. There is no significant difference in the rate of recurrent deep infection (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.38-2.15, P = .83) or amputation (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.23-3.84, P = .93). The rate of revision arthrodesis procedures is significantly lower for intramedullary nailing compared with external fixation (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.93, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Intramedullary nailing is more effective than external fixation with respect to several clinically important outcomes. Therefore, we recommend intramedullary nailing for achieving knee arthrodesis as a salvage procedure for infected TKA in the absence of specific indications for external fixation.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在比较感染性全膝关节置换术后失败后髓内钉与外固定治疗膝关节融合的效果。主要结果是影像学融合。次要结果包括深部感染复发、关节融合翻修和截肢。

方法

系统评价和荟萃分析比较了感染性全膝关节置换术后接受关节融合术的患者中髓内钉和外固定的结果。纳入了随机对照试验和队列研究。

结果

在平均随访 44.22 个月时,髓内钉在影像学融合方面的成功率明显高于外固定(优势比 [OR] 5.17,95%置信区间 [CI] 2.74-9.75,P <.00001)。深部感染复发率(OR 0.91,95% CI 0.38-2.15,P =.83)或截肢率(OR 0.94,95% CI 0.23-3.84,P =.93)无显著差异。与外固定相比,髓内钉的关节融合翻修率显著降低(OR 0.28,95% CI 0.08-0.93,P =.04)。

结论

髓内钉在几个重要的临床结果方面优于外固定。因此,我们建议在没有外固定特定适应证的情况下,将髓内钉作为感染性全膝关节置换术后失败的补救性膝关节融合术。

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

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验