Suppr超能文献

远端股骨假体置换与切开复位内固定治疗股骨假体周围远端骨折:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Distal Femur Replacement Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Treatment of Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; and.

Lane Medical Library & Knowledge Management Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

出版信息

J Orthop Trauma. 2022 Jan 1;36(1):1-6. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000002141.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare complications and functional outcomes of treatment with primary distal femoral replacement (DFR) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for English language studies up to May 19, 2020, identifying 913 studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that assessed complications of periprosthetic distal femur fractures with primary DFR or ORIF were included. Studies with sample size ≤5, mean age <55, nontraumatic indications for DFR, ORIF with nonlocking plates, native distal femoral fractures, or revision surgeries were excluded. Selection adhered to the PRISMA criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study quality was assessed using previously reported criteria. There were 40 Level IV studies, 17 Level III studies, and 1 Level II study.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Fifty-eight studies with 1484 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Complications assessed {incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.78 [0.59-1.03]} and reoperation or revision [IRR (95% CI): 0.71 (0.49-1.04)] were similar between the DFR and ORIF cohorts. The mean knee range of motion was greater in the ORIF cohort (DFR: 90.47 vs. ORIF: 100.36, P < 0.05). The mean Knee Society Score (KSS) (DFR: 79.41 vs. ORIF: 82.07, P = 0.35) and return to preoperative ambulatory status were similar [IRR (95% CI): 0.82 (0.48-1.41)].

CONCLUSIONS

In comparing complications among patients treated for periprosthetic distal femur fracture with DFR or ORIF, there was no difference between the groups. There were also no differences in functional outcomes, although knee range of motion was greater in the ORIF group. This systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the need for future prospective trials evaluating the outcomes of these divergent treatment strategies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

摘要

目的

比较初次股骨远端置换(DFR)与切开复位内固定(ORIF)治疗股骨假体周围远端骨折的并发症和功能结局。

资料来源

截至 2020 年 5 月 19 日,在 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库中检索英文文献,共检索到 913 项研究。

研究选择

纳入评估初次 DFR 或 ORIF 治疗股骨假体周围远端骨折患者并发症的研究。排除样本量≤5、平均年龄<55 岁、DFR 非创伤性适应证、ORIF 非锁定钢板、股骨远端骨折或翻修手术的研究。选择符合 PRISMA 标准。

资料提取

使用先前报道的标准评估研究质量。其中 40 项为 IV 级研究,17 项为 III 级研究,1 项为 II 级研究。

资料综合

58 项研究共纳入 1484 例患者进行 meta 分析。并发症评估[发生率比(IRR)[95%置信区间(CI)]:0.78 [0.59-1.03])和再手术或翻修[IRR(95% CI):0.71(0.49-1.04)]在 DFR 和 ORIF 两组间相似。ORIF 组的膝关节活动度平均较大(DFR:90.47 比 ORIF:100.36,P<0.05)。Knee Society Score(KSS)平均值(DFR:79.41 比 ORIF:82.07,P=0.35)和恢复术前活动状态相似[IRR(95% CI):0.82(0.48-1.41)]。

结论

在比较初次股骨远端置换(DFR)与切开复位内固定(ORIF)治疗股骨假体周围远端骨折患者的并发症时,两组间无差异。功能结局也无差异,尽管 ORIF 组的膝关节活动度较大。本系统评价和 meta 分析强调需要未来前瞻性试验评估这些不同治疗策略的结局。

证据等级

治疗性 III 级。请参阅作者说明以获取完整的证据水平描述。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验