Xie Lin, Zhao Zhigang, Zhang Shujun, Hu Yabin
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Wuhan Orthopedic Hospital, Wuhan Puai Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang Province, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Jan;97(4):e9752. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009752.
Displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures (DMCFs) are common injuries. Both intramedullary fixation (IMF) and plate fixation (PF) have been described and routinely used. Multiple trials have been conducted to compare these treatments. Multiple meta-analyses have been published to compare IMF and PF treatment for DMCFs; however, the results remain controversial. The purposes of this study were to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing IMF and PF treatment for DMCFs, to help decision makers critically evaluate the current meta-analyses, and to propose a guide through the best available evidence.
We searched the Cochrane library, PubMed, and EMBASE data bases. Two authors independently scanned titles and abstracts to exclude irrelevant articles and identify meta-analyses that met the eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of the meta-analysis was independently assessed by the 2 authors using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Heterogeneity information of each variable was extracted from the included studies. An I of <60% is accepted in this systematic review. The Jadad algorithm was then applied to determine which of the meta-analyses provided the best evidence.
Eight meta-analysis met the inclusion criteria in this study. AMSTAR scores varied from 7 to 9. Heterogeneity of each outcome was acceptable. Four authors independently selected the same meta-analysis as providing the highest quality of evidence using the Jadad decision algorithm.
This systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses suggests that compared with PF, major reintervention and refracture after implant removal occurred more frequently after PF of DMCFs. No differences in terms of function and non-union between PF and IMF were observed. Future research should focus on fracture selection for IMF and further improvement of plates and IM devices.
中段锁骨移位骨折(DMCFs)是常见的损伤。髓内固定(IMF)和钢板固定(PF)都有相关描述且常规使用。已经进行了多项试验来比较这些治疗方法。也发表了多项荟萃分析来比较DMCFs的IMF和PF治疗;然而,结果仍存在争议。本研究的目的是对比较DMCFs的IMF和PF治疗的重叠荟萃分析进行系统评价,以帮助决策者批判性地评估当前的荟萃分析,并通过现有最佳证据提出指导意见。
我们检索了Cochrane图书馆、PubMed和EMBASE数据库。两位作者独立浏览标题和摘要,以排除不相关的文章,并识别符合纳入标准的荟萃分析。两位作者使用牛津循证医学中心证据水平和多重系统评价评估(AMSTAR)工具独立评估荟萃分析的方法学质量。从纳入研究中提取每个变量的异质性信息。本系统评价中I<60%被接受。然后应用Jadad算法来确定哪些荟萃分析提供了最佳证据。
本研究中有八项荟萃分析符合纳入标准。AMSTAR评分从7到9不等。每个结局的异质性均可接受。四位作者使用Jadad决策算法独立选择了同一篇荟萃分析,认为其提供了最高质量的证据。
这项对重叠荟萃分析的系统评价表明,与PF相比,DMCFs行PF后植入物取出后的再次主要干预和再骨折更为频繁。未观察到PF和IMF在功能和骨不连方面的差异。未来的研究应侧重于IMF的骨折选择以及钢板和髓内装置的进一步改进。