Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Luzern, Switzerland; Department of Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Department of Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Jul;29(7):1493-1504. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.01.072. Epub 2020 Apr 3.
This meta-analysis aimed to compare conservative vs. operative treatment for humeral shaft fractures in terms of the nonunion rate, reintervention rate, permanent radial nerve palsy rate, and functional outcomes. Secondarily, effect estimates from observational studies were compared with estimates of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
The PubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases were searched for both RCTs and observational studies comparing conservative with operative treatment for humeral shaft fractures.
A total of 2 RCTs (150 patients) and 10 observational studies (1262 patients) were included. The pooled nonunion rate of all studies was higher in patients treated conservatively (15.3%) vs. operatively (6.4%) (risk difference, 8%; odds ratio [OR], 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-4.5; I = 0%). The reintervention rate was also higher for conservative treatment (14.3%) than for operative treatment (8.9%) (risk difference, 6%; OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5; I = 30%). The higher reintervention rate was predominantly attributable to the higher nonunion rate in patients treated conservatively. The permanent radial nerve palsy rate was equal in both groups (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.2-1.9; I = 18%). There appeared to be no difference in mean time to union and mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores between the treatment groups. No difference was found between effect estimates form observational studies and RCTs.
This systematic review shows that satisfactory results can be achieved with both conservative and operative management; however, operative treatment reduces the risk of nonunion compared with conservative treatment, with comparable reintervention rates (for indications other than nonunion). Furthermore, operative treatment results in a similar permanent radial nerve palsy rate, despite its inherent additional surgery-related risks. No difference in mean time-to-union and short-term functional results was detected.
本荟萃分析旨在比较肱骨干骨折保守治疗与手术治疗的非愈合率、再次干预率、永久性桡神经麻痹率和功能结果。其次,将观察性研究的效应估计值与随机临床试验(RCT)的估计值进行比较。
检索了 PubMed/Medline、Embase、CENTRAL(Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库)和 CINAHL(护理和联合健康文献累积索引)数据库,以查找比较保守治疗与手术治疗肱骨干骨折的 RCT 和观察性研究。
共纳入 2 项 RCT(150 例患者)和 10 项观察性研究(1262 例患者)。所有研究中,保守治疗患者的非愈合率(15.3%)高于手术治疗患者(6.4%)(风险差,8%;比值比[OR],2.9;95%置信区间[CI],1.8-4.5;I = 0%)。保守治疗的再次干预率(14.3%)也高于手术治疗(8.9%)(风险差,6%;OR,1.9;95% CI,1.1-3.5;I = 30%)。较高的再次干预率主要归因于保守治疗患者的非愈合率较高。两组永久性桡神经麻痹率相等(OR,0.6;95% CI,0.2-1.9;I = 18%)。治疗组之间的愈合时间和手臂、肩部和手部残疾评分的平均差异没有发现。观察性研究和 RCT 的效应估计值之间没有差异。
本系统评价表明,保守治疗和手术治疗均可获得满意的结果;然而,与保守治疗相比,手术治疗可降低非愈合的风险,且再干预率相当(除非愈合外的其他指征)。此外,尽管手术治疗存在额外的手术相关风险,但会导致相似的永久性桡神经麻痹率。未发现愈合时间和短期功能结果的平均差异。