Alcelik Ilhan, Fenton Carl, Hannant Gary, Abdelrahim Musaab, Jowett Charlie, Budgen Adam, Stanley James
York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, The York Hospital Wigginton Road, York, YO31 8HE, United Kingdom.
York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, The York Hospital Wigginton Road, York, YO31 8HE, United Kingdom.
Foot Ankle Surg. 2020 Apr;26(3):299-307. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2019.04.003. Epub 2019 Apr 27.
Injuries to the Lisfranc complex, although relatively rare carry a high morbidity and are often associated with other injuries. Despite a number published studies to determine the best operative management, there is an ongoing debate to whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis (PA) produces the best outcomes for patients. There have been further studies published in the last few years that have not been assessed as part of the wider literature and therefore we wished to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with inclusion of outcomes not assessed in the previous studies.
We performed a structured search for retrospective and prospective comparative papers and identified 8 relevant articles (2 RCT studies and 6 non-RCT studies) that compared the outcomes of ORIF versus PA; these studies included a total of 547 patients. Each of the studies was assessed for suitability and quality before inclusion. We performed a statistical analysis of the aggregated results as part of the review.
We found no statistically significant difference between the outcomes of ORIF versus PA in terms of return to work or activity (Odds Ratio 0.80 (CI 95%, 0.32-2.02, P=0.64)) and satisfaction rates (Odds Ratio 0.15 (CI 95%, 0.01-.00, P=0.25)). Patients undergoing ORIF have a higher risk of undergoing further surgery to remove the metalwork (Odds Ration 13.13 (CI 95%, 7.65-22.54, P<0.00001)) or to undergo secondary fusion, but, the overall complication rates appear to be equivalent in both groups (risk difference 0.03 (CI 95%, -0.15-0.21, P=0.76)).
Although there were no significant differences in the functional outcomes, the overall power of the studies is low. The rates of metalwork removal and secondary fusion were higher in the ORIF group and this risk should be presented to the patient when counselling them for any procedure. We noted that there is a high level of heterogeneity in the type of injuries and measured outcomes included in each study and, therefore, further trials are needed to determine the best treatment across the spectrum of Lisfranc complex injuries.
Lisfranc复合体损伤虽然相对少见,但致残率高,且常伴有其他损伤。尽管已有多项研究来确定最佳的手术治疗方法,但对于切开复位内固定术(ORIF)或一期关节融合术(PA)哪种方法能为患者带来最佳疗效仍存在争议。过去几年又发表了一些研究,但未作为更广泛文献的一部分进行评估,因此我们希望进行一次更新的系统评价和荟萃分析,纳入先前研究未评估的结果。
我们对回顾性和前瞻性比较论文进行了结构化检索,确定了8篇相关文章(2项随机对照试验研究和6项非随机对照试验研究),这些研究比较了ORIF与PA的疗效;这些研究共纳入547例患者。每项研究在纳入前都进行了适用性和质量评估。作为综述的一部分,我们对汇总结果进行了统计分析。
我们发现,在恢复工作或活动方面(优势比0.80(95%置信区间,0.32 - 2.02,P = 0.64))以及满意度方面(优势比0.15(95%置信区间,0.01 - 0.00,P = 0.25)),ORIF与PA的疗效在统计学上无显著差异。接受ORIF治疗的患者进行进一步手术取出内固定物(优势比13.13(95%置信区间,7.65 - 22.54,P < 0.00001))或进行二期融合的风险更高,但是,两组的总体并发症发生率似乎相当(风险差异0.03(95%置信区间,-0.15 - 0.21,P = 0.76))。
尽管功能结局无显著差异,但研究的总体效能较低。ORIF组取出内固定物和二期融合的发生率较高,在为患者提供任何手术咨询时,应告知患者这一风险。我们注意到,每项研究中纳入的损伤类型和测量结局存在高度异质性,因此,需要进一步的试验来确定Lisfranc复合体损伤全谱的最佳治疗方法。