Suppr超能文献

急性下胫腓联合分离患者中缝线纽扣技术与螺钉固定技术疗效的比较:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析

Comparison of Outcomes Between Suture Button Technique and Screw Fixation Technique in Patients With Acute Syndesmotic Diastasis: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

作者信息

Ramadanov Nikolai, Bueschges Simon, Dimitrov Dobromir

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Thüringen, Germany.

Center of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Germany.

出版信息

Foot Ankle Orthop. 2021 Dec 10;6(4):24730114211061405. doi: 10.1177/24730114211061405. eCollection 2021 Oct.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to compare the outcome between suture button (SB) stabilization and syndesmotic screw fixation (SF) in patients with acute syndesmotic diastasis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search up to June 30, 2021, was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of SB with SF techniques in patients with acute syndesmotic diastasis. We calculated mean differences for continuous outcomes, using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method, and odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes, using the Mantel-Haenszel method.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 569 patients met the inclusion criteria, 1 RCT with level I evidence, and 7 RCTs with level II evidence. The meta-analysis showed that the SB technique had a higher AOFAS score <6 months and 12 months postoperatively (MD = 4.74, 95% CI 1.68-7.80, = .01; and MD = 5.42, 95% CI 1.50-9.33, = .02) and reduced the risk of implant irritation (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.89, = .03), implant failure (OR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.02-0.23, < .01), and reoperation (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.22-0.83, = .01). The 2 approaches did not differ in further functional outcomes or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Because functional outcomes showed no relevant difference between both SB and SF, the advantage of SB appears to be in the lower risk for postoperative complications. The SB technique led to fewer cases of implant irritation, implant failure, and reoperation compared with SF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, meta-analysis of RCTs.

摘要

背景

我们的目的是比较急性下胫腓联合分离患者采用缝线纽扣(SB)固定与下胫腓联合螺钉固定(SF)的治疗效果。

方法

进行了一项截至2021年6月30日的系统文献检索,以确定比较急性下胫腓联合分离患者采用SB与SF技术治疗效果的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们使用Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman方法计算连续结果的平均差,使用Mantel-Haenszel方法计算二分结果的比值比。

结果

八项涉及569例患者的RCT符合纳入标准,1项为I级证据的RCT,7项为II级证据的RCT。荟萃分析表明,SB技术在术后<6个月和12个月时具有更高的美国足踝外科协会(AOFAS)评分(平均差=4.74,95%可信区间1.68-7.80,P=.01;平均差=5.42,95%可信区间1.50-9.33,P=.02),并降低了植入物刺激风险(比值比=0.31,95%可信区间0.11-0.89,P=.03)、植入物失败风险(比值比=0.06,95%可信区间0.02-0.23,P<.01)和再次手术风险(比值比=0.43,95%可信区间0.22-0.83,P=.01)。两种方法在进一步的功能结果或术后并发症方面无差异。

结论

由于SB和SF在功能结果上无显著差异,SB的优势似乎在于术后并发症风险较低。与SF相比,SB技术导致的植入物刺激、植入物失败和再次手术病例较少。

证据水平

I级,RCT的荟萃分析。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验