The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, 450052, People's Republic of China.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Jan;141(1):45-53. doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03456-w. Epub 2020 May 4.
Some studies have reported that the electromagnetic navigation (EN) technique is better than the free-hand (FH) method. Nevertheless, there are few clinical trials. In recent years, several clinical trials have been conducted, providing sufficient information to compare the two methods.
We compared the FH and EN techniques (SURESHOT, Smith and Nephew, Inc., Memphis, TN) in terms of the distal locking time, exposure time, first success rate, healing time and operative time. We comprehensively searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then we extracted data for specific variables from these reports. The risk of bias was assessed. Stata 13.0 was used for analysis.
Nine studies involving 579 patients were pooled in this study. The meta-analysis showed that EN was associated with a shorter distal locking time (P = 0.001) and exposure time (P = 0.001) than FH performed by surgeons who are not proficient in using the FH technique. No significant differences were found in the first success rate (P = 0.231), healing time (P = 0.09) or operative time (P = 0.510).
The EN technique has the advantages of a shorter distal locking time and smaller amount of ionizing radiation exposure compared with the FH technique.
一些研究报告称，电磁导航（EN）技术优于徒手（FH）方法。然而，临床研究较少。近年来，已经进行了几项临床试验，提供了足够的信息来比较这两种方法。
我们比较了 FH 和 EN 技术（SURESHOT，Smith and Nephew，Inc.，Memphis，TN）在远端锁定时间、暴露时间、首次成功率、愈合时间和手术时间方面的差异。我们根据预定的纳入和排除标准全面检索了 Medline、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库，然后从这些报告中提取特定变量的数据。评估了偏倚风险。使用 Stata 13.0 进行分析。
本研究共纳入了 9 项涉及 579 例患者的研究。荟萃分析显示，与不熟练 FH 技术的外科医生相比，EN 技术与较短的远端锁定时间（P=0.001）和暴露时间（P=0.001）相关。首次成功率（P=0.231）、愈合时间（P=0.09）或手术时间（P=0.510）无显著差异。
与 FH 技术相比，EN 技术具有较短的远端锁定时间和较小的电离辐射暴露量的优势。
