Department of Orthopaedics, University College of Medical Sciences and GTB Hospital, Delhi, India.
Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, India.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023 Feb;143(2):895-907. doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04369-6. Epub 2022 Feb 9.
Acetabulum fracture is one of the most challenging fractures to manage and operate for orthopaedic surgeons; anatomical reduction of fractures and reconstruction of the joint is of utmost importance. These factors in turn are dependent on the appropriate surgical approach used to improve the clinical outcomes and reduce associated complications. Hence, this meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of ilioinguinal versus modified Stoppa approach for open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of displaced acetabular fractures.
Medline (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception to 10th of June 2021 for both randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and or non-randomized studies comparing the outcomes of ilioinguinal approach and modified Stoppa approach for the ORIF of acetabular fractures. The estimates of treatment effects were described by mean difference (MD) for continuous variables and odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous variables with corresponding 95% confidence (95% CI) intervals. The risk of bias was assessed by MINORS tool for the non-randomized, and the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool for RCTs.
A total of ten studies (717 patients), three RCTs and seven retrospective studies, were included. Modified Stoppa approach showed shorter mean duration of surgery (MD 47.13, 95% CI: 27.30-66.96), lesser number of overall complications (OR 2.14, 95% CI: 1.46-3.13), less intraoperative blood loss (MD 259.65, 95% CI: 152.66-366.64), and lower rates of infection (OR 2.17, 95% CI: 1.14-4.15). However, ilioinguinal approach showed a better quality of fracture reduction (OR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.42-0.82). Results were equivocal in terms of vascular injuries (OR 1.88 (95% CI: 0.86-4.09), nerve injuries (OR 1.77, 95% CI: 0.99-3.17), heterotopic ossification (OR1.74, 95% CI: 0.63-4.82), and clinical outcome (OR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.45-1.47) between the two groups.
Modified Stoppa approach carries a lesser duration of surgery, lesser intraoperative blood loss, fewer overall complications, and lesser postoperative infection rates compared to ilioinguinal approach. Although a better anatomical reduction is achieved by ilioinguinal approach, however, this does not translate into better clinic functional outcomes which remain comparable between the two approaches. So overall, modified Stoppa approach seems a better alternative for managing these fractures.
髋臼骨折是骨科医生最难治疗和手术的骨折之一;骨折的解剖复位和关节重建至关重要。这些因素反过来又取决于用于改善临床结果和减少相关并发症的适当手术入路。因此,这项荟萃分析旨在比较髂腹股沟入路与改良Stoppa 入路治疗髋臼移位骨折的切开复位内固定(ORIF)的效果。
从成立到 2021 年 6 月 10 日,我们在 Medline(PubMed)、Embase、Scopus 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库中搜索了比较髂腹股沟入路和改良 Stoppa 入路治疗髋臼骨折 ORIF 的结果的随机临床试验(RCT)和非随机研究。连续变量的治疗效果估计值用平均值差(MD)表示,二分类变量的治疗效果估计值用比值比(OR)表示,相应的 95%置信区间(95%CI)。非随机研究采用 MINORS 工具评估偏倚风险,RCT 采用 Cochrane 协作组的偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。
共纳入 10 项研究(717 例患者),包括 3 项 RCT 和 7 项回顾性研究。改良 Stoppa 入路的手术时间更短(MD 47.13,95%CI:27.30-66.96),总并发症发生率更低(OR 2.14,95%CI:1.46-3.13),术中出血量更少(MD 259.65,95%CI:152.66-366.64),感染率更低(OR 2.17,95%CI:1.14-4.15)。然而,髂腹股沟入路的骨折复位质量更好(OR 0.59,95%CI:0.42-0.82)。两组之间的血管损伤(OR 1.88(95%CI:0.86-4.09))、神经损伤(OR 1.77,95%CI:0.99-3.17))、异位骨化(OR1.74,95%CI:0.63-4.82)和临床结果(OR 0.81,95%CI:0.45-1.47))的发生率存在争议。
与髂腹股沟入路相比,改良 Stoppa 入路的手术时间更短、术中出血量更少、总并发症发生率更低、术后感染率更低。虽然髂腹股沟入路可获得更好的解剖复位,但这并不能转化为更好的临床功能结果,两种方法的结果仍然相当。因此,总体而言,改良 Stoppa 入路似乎是治疗这些骨折的更好选择。