Suppr超能文献

手术治疗踝关节骨折的临床结果:随机对照试验中髓内钉固定与切开复位内固定治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Clinical outcomes in the surgical management of ankle fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of fibular intramedullary nail fixation vs. open reduction and internal fixation in randomized controlled trials.

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Valley Hospital Medical Center, Las Vegas, NV, USA; The Foot and Ankle Institute at Desert Orthopaedic Center, Las Vegas, NV, USA.

The Foot and Ankle Institute at Desert Orthopaedic Center, Las Vegas, NV, USA.

出版信息

Foot Ankle Surg. 2022 Oct;28(7):836-844. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2022.03.009. Epub 2022 Mar 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

What level I evidence exists to support the use of FNF for surgical management of ankle fractures in high risk patients? The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes following fibular intramedullary nail fixation (FNF) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of ankle fractures.

METHODS

A systematic review of the current literature was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Certainty of evidence reported according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Our primary hypothesis was that patients undergoing FNF procedures to manage an ankle fracture would have significantly higher patient reported outcome scores (PROs) than patients undergoing ORIF. Primary study outcome measures were validated PROs. Secondary outcome measures included complication rate, secondary surgery rate, and bony union.

RESULTS

The primary outcome analysis revealed no evidence of a significant effect difference on Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) PRO and no evidence of statistical heterogeneity. Secondary outcome analysis revealed a significant 0.30 (0.12-0.74 95CI) relative risk reduction for complications in FNF (P = 0.008). No evidence of an effect difference for bony union. The GRADE certainty of the evidence was rated as low for bone union. No evidence of reporting bias was appreciated. Sensitivity analyses did not significantly alter effect estimates.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis restricted to evidence derived from RCTs revealed that the quality of evidence is reasonably strong and likely sufficient to conclude: (1) there is likely no clinically important difference between FNF and ORIF up to 12 months post-operatively, as defined by OMS (moderate certainty); (2) surgeons may reasonably expect reduced complications in 14 out of every 100 patients treated with FNF (moderate certainty); (3) there is likely no difference in bony union (low certainty). Future studies should investigate more patient-centered outcomes and if short-term findings are durable over time if these findings apply to lower risk populations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis of level I evidence.

摘要

背景

有哪些证据级别支持使用 FNF 治疗高危患者的踝关节骨折?本研究旨在比较腓骨髓内钉固定(FNF)和切开复位内固定(ORIF)治疗踝关节骨折的临床结果。

方法

根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南对当前文献进行系统回顾。根据 GRADE(推荐评估、制定和评估分级)报告证据确定性。我们的主要假设是,接受 FNF 手术治疗踝关节骨折的患者的患者报告结局评分(PROs)将显著高于接受 ORIF 的患者。主要研究结果测量是验证的 PROs。次要结果测量包括并发症发生率、二次手术率和骨愈合。

结果

主要结果分析显示,在 Olerud 和 Molander 踝关节评分(OMAS)PRO 方面没有证据表明存在显著的效应差异,也没有证据表明存在统计学异质性。二次结果分析显示,FNF 的并发症相对风险降低了 0.30(95%CI:0.12-0.74)(P=0.008)。骨愈合无证据表明存在效应差异。证据的 GRADE 确定性评分为低。没有发现报告偏倚的证据。敏感性分析没有显著改变效应估计。

结论

本系统回顾和荟萃分析仅限于来自随机对照试验的证据,结果显示证据质量相当高,足以得出以下结论:(1)在 12 个月的随访中,FNF 和 ORIF 之间可能没有临床重要的差异,定义为 OMS(中等确定性);(2)对于每 100 名接受 FNF 治疗的患者,医生可能合理地期望减少 14 名患者的并发症(中等确定性);(3)骨愈合可能没有差异(低确定性)。未来的研究应调查更多以患者为中心的结局,如果这些发现适用于低风险人群,是否在短期内发现是持久的。

证据水平

I 级证据的系统评价和荟萃分析。

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