Honnenahalli Chandrappa Mallikarjun, Hajibandeh Shahin, Hajibandeh Shahab
Trauma and orthopaedics department, Bedford hospital, Kempston Rd, Bedford, MK429DJ, United Kingdom.
General Surgery department, Royal Blackburn Hospital, Haslingden Rd, Blackburn BB2 3HH, United Kingdom.
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2017 Nov;8(Suppl 2):S71-S77. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2017.03.010. Epub 2017 Apr 6.
Our objective was to perform a systematic review of the literature and conduct a meta-analysis to investigate the outcomes of open versus arthroscopic methods of ankle fusion.
In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards, we performed a systematic review. Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify randomised and non-randomised studies comparing outcomes of arthroscopic and open ankle arthrodesis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of the selected studies. Fixed-effect or random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data.
We identified one prospective cohort study and 5 retrospective cohort studies, enrolling a total of 286 patients with ankle arthritis. Our analysis showed that open ankle fusion was associated with a lower fusion rate (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13-0.52, P = 0.0002), longer tourniquet time (MD 16.49, 95% CI 9.46-23.41, P < 0.00001), and longer length of stay (MD 1.60,95% CI 1.10-2.10, P < 0.00001) compared to arthroscopic ankle fusion; however, there was no significant difference between two groups in terms of infection rate (OR 2.41, 95% CI 0.76-7.64, P = 0.14), overall complication rate (OR: 1.54, 95% CI 0.80-2.96, P = 0.20), and operation time (MD 4.09, 95% CI -2.49-10.66, P = 0.22). The between-study heterogeneity was high for tourniquet time but low or moderate for other outcomes. The direction of the effect sizes remains unchanged throughout sensitivity analyses.
The best available evidence demonstrates that arthroscopic ankle fusion may be associated with a higher fusion rate, shorter tourniquet time, and shorter length of stay compared to open ankle fusion. We found no significant difference between two groups in terms of infection rate, overall complication rate, and operation time. The best available evidence is not adequately robust to make definitive conclusions. Long-term results of the comparative efficacy of arthroscopic ankle fusion over open ankle fusion are not currently available. Further high quality randomised controlled trials that are adequately powered are required.
我们的目的是对文献进行系统评价并开展荟萃分析,以研究开放性与关节镜下踝关节融合术的疗效。
按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)声明标准,我们进行了一项系统评价。检索电子数据库MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL以及Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL),以识别比较关节镜下与开放性踝关节融合术疗效的随机和非随机研究。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估所选研究的方法学质量和偏倚风险。应用固定效应或随机效应模型计算汇总结局数据。
我们识别出1项前瞻性队列研究和5项回顾性队列研究,共纳入286例踝关节关节炎患者。我们的分析表明,与关节镜下踝关节融合术相比,开放性踝关节融合术的融合率较低(比值比0.26,95%置信区间0.13 - 0.52,P = 0.0002),止血带时间较长(平均差16.49,95%置信区间9.46 - 23.41,P < 0.00001),住院时间较长(平均差1.60,95%置信区间1.10 - 2.10,P < 0.00001);然而,两组在感染率(比值比2.41,95%置信区间0.76 - 7.64,P = 0.14)、总体并发症发生率(比值比:1.54,95%置信区间0.80 - 2.96,P = 0.20)和手术时间(平均差4.09,95%置信区间 - 2.49 - 10.66,P = 0.22)方面无显著差异。研究间止血带时间的异质性较高,但其他结局的异质性较低或中等。在敏感性分析中,效应量的方向保持不变。
现有最佳证据表明,与开放性踝关节融合术相比,关节镜下踝关节融合术可能具有更高的融合率、更短的止血带时间和更短的住院时间。我们发现两组在感染率、总体并发症发生率和手术时间方面无显著差异。现有最佳证据的力度不足以得出确定性结论。目前尚无关节镜下踝关节融合术与开放性踝关节融合术比较疗效的长期结果。需要开展更多有足够效力的高质量随机对照试验。