Ju Weina, Mohamed Sayid Omar, Qi Baochang
Department of Neurology and Neuroscience Center, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin 130021, P.R. China.
Department of Orthopedics, Jazeera University Hospital, Mogadishu BN SO 935, Somalia.
Exp Ther Med. 2020 Sep;20(3):2783-2793. doi: 10.3892/etm.2020.9002. Epub 2020 Jul 13.
A number of meta-analyses have compared clinical outcomes following plate vs. intramedullary fixation for midshaft clavicle fractures (MSCF), but with conflicting results. There is a requirement for updated level-1 evidence to guide clinicians managing MSCF. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcomes following plate vs. intramedullary fixation of MSCF. The PubMed, Scopus, BioMed Central, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar databases were searched for records added until 1st July 2019. A total of 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Shoulder function was assessed using the Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome questionnaire and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH). There was no statistically significant difference in Constant-Murley scores between plate and intramedullary fixation [Mean difference (MD)=0.75; 95% CI: -2.49 to 3.99; P=0.65; I=85%]. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in DASH scores between the two groups (MD=1.55; 95% CI: -1.12 to 4.23; P=0.26; I=89%). There was no statistically significant difference in complications requiring non-routine surgery between plate and intramedullary fixation [risk ratio (RR)=1.80, 95%CI: 0.80-4.05, P=0.15; I=0%]. There was an increased risk of complications that did not require non-routine surgery with plate fixation as compared to intramedullary fixation (RR=2.38, 95%CI: 1.22-4.62, P=0.01; I=70%). Plate fixation was also associated with an increased risk of infection and complications of cosmetic dissatisfaction. The present results indicated no difference in long-term functional outcomes between plate and intramedullary fixation of MSCF. Plate fixation was associated with an increased risk of complications not requiring non-routine surgery. Further high-quality RCTs shall strengthen the evidence on this subject.
多项荟萃分析比较了钢板与髓内固定治疗锁骨中段骨折(MSCF)后的临床结果,但结果相互矛盾。需要更新的一级证据来指导临床医生处理MSCF。本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是比较钢板与髓内固定治疗MSCF后的临床结果。检索了PubMed、Scopus、BioMed Central、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库和谷歌学术数据库,以获取截至2019年7月1日添加的记录。共纳入10项随机对照试验(RCT)。使用Constant-Murley肩关节结果问卷和手臂、肩部和手部功能障碍问卷(DASH)评估肩部功能。钢板固定和髓内固定之间的Constant-Murley评分无统计学显著差异[平均差(MD)=0.75;95%置信区间:-2.49至3.99;P=0.65;I=85%]。同样,两组之间的DASH评分也无统计学显著差异(MD=1.55;95%置信区间:-1.12至4.23;P=0.26;I=89%)。钢板固定和髓内固定之间,需要非常规手术的并发症无统计学显著差异[风险比(RR)=1.80,95%置信区间:0.80-4.05,P=0.15;I=0%]。与髓内固定相比,钢板固定出现不需要非常规手术的并发症风险增加(RR=2.38,95%置信区间:1.22-4.62,P=0.01;I=70%)。钢板固定还与感染风险增加和美容不满意并发症相关。目前的结果表明,钢板与髓内固定治疗MSCF的长期功能结果无差异。钢板固定与不需要非常规手术的并发症风险增加相关。进一步的高质量RCT将加强关于该主题的证据。