Jindal Karan, Neradi Deepak, Sodavarapu Praveen, Kumar Deepak, Shetty Akshay, Goni Vijay
Department of Orthopaedics, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India.
Indian J Orthop. 2020 Nov 21;55(3):582-594. doi: 10.1007/s43465-020-00304-2. eCollection 2021 Jun.
Extra-articular proximal tibia fractures make up to one-tenth of all tibia shaft fractures. Treatment options include conservative, nailing, plating and external fixation. There is no consensus on which method is superior if the patient is to be managed surgically.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to know which definitive surgical treatment option (nailing or plating) is better for extra-articular proximal tibia fracture. We used search engines like PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Ovid Medline and Google Scholar to find articles comparing the results of nailing versus plating. We could identify only 4 articles regarding this and data was extracted and meta-analysis was done.
Delayed union was common in the nailing group with odds ratio of 8.29 favoring the plating group (95% CI 1.77, 38.80, = 0.007) while malunion showed no difference in both groups. Rate of infection was higher in the plating group while anterior knee pain was common in the nailing group with odds ratio of 5.54 favoring the plating group (95% CI 1.49, 13.88, = 0.008). Range of motion showed no difference between both groups, fractures in the nailing group united early and the difference was significant ( = 0.005, odds ratio - 4.48) (95% CI - 8.29, - 1.47).The surgical duration was less in the nailing group but was not significant.
Considering lesser time for union, early weight bearing, lower chances of infection and lesser surgical duration, nailing seems to be more promising for extra articular proximal tibia fractures. Further research is required on this topic to provide a definitive evidence.
胫骨近端关节外骨折占所有胫骨干骨折的十分之一。治疗选择包括保守治疗、髓内钉固定、钢板固定和外固定。对于需要手术治疗的患者,哪种方法更优尚无共识。
我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以了解哪种确定性手术治疗方案(髓内钉固定或钢板固定)对胫骨近端关节外骨折更好。我们使用了如PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Ovid Medline和谷歌学术等搜索引擎来查找比较髓内钉固定与钢板固定结果的文章。我们仅能找到4篇关于此的文章,并提取了数据并进行了荟萃分析。
髓内钉固定组延迟愈合常见,优势比为8.29,支持钢板固定组(95%置信区间1.77, 38.80,P = 0.007),而两组畸形愈合无差异。钢板固定组感染率较高,而髓内钉固定组前膝痛常见,优势比为5.54,支持钢板固定组(95%置信区间1.49, 13.88,P = 0.008)。两组活动范围无差异,髓内钉固定组骨折愈合早,差异有统计学意义(P = 0.005,优势比 -4.48)(95%置信区间 -8.29, -1.47)。髓内钉固定组手术时间较短,但差异无统计学意义。
考虑到愈合时间较短、早期负重、感染几率较低以及手术时间较短,髓内钉固定对于胫骨近端关节外骨折似乎更有前景。关于这个主题需要进一步研究以提供确凿证据。