Suppr超能文献

头髓钉与动力髋螺钉固定在股骨颈基底部骨折中的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Cephalomedullary Nailing versus Dynamic Hip Screw Fixation in Basicervical Femoral Neck Fracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

机构信息

Orthopedic Trauma Division, Trauma Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Yonsei Med J. 2022 Aug;63(8):744-750. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2022.63.8.744.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Although many studies have reported the use of dynamic hip screws (DHS) and cephalomedullary nailing (CMN) for basicervical femoral neck fracture (BFNF), no clear treatment protocols have been recommended. The present study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes associated with DHS and CMN to determine the appropriate fixation method for BFNF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published up to January 9, 2021 that compared the treatment outcomes between CMN and DHS in BFNF. The primary outcomes of the present meta-analysis were fracture union time, postoperative cut-out rate, and reoperation rate.

RESULTS

We included seven studies involving 353 cases of BFNF in our review. Of these, 206 patients were treated using CMN, and DHS were utilized in 147 patients. In a pooled analysis, the DHS group required a longer time to achieve fracture union compared to the CMN group [mean difference (MD): -0.41; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.70, -0.12; =0.006; I²=0%]. However, the cut-out and reoperation rates exhibited no statistically significant differences between the DHS and CMN groups [cut-out odds ratio (OR): 0.54; 95% CI: 0.10, 2.82; =0.47; I²=24%, reoperation rate OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.15, 2.86; =0.57; I²=19%, respectively].

CONCLUSION

Stable fixation using DHS and CMN does not show a significant clinical or radiographical difference in BFNF, and the implant can be selected based on the surgeon's preference.

摘要

目的

尽管许多研究报告了使用动力髋螺钉(DHS)和股骨近端髓内钉(CMN)治疗股骨颈基底骨折(BFNF),但尚未推荐明确的治疗方案。本研究旨在比较 DHS 和 CMN 治疗 BFNF 的手术结果,以确定 BFNF 的合适固定方法。

材料与方法

我们系统地检索了 MEDLINE、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆,以获取截至 2021 年 1 月 9 日发表的比较 BFNF 中 CMN 和 DHS 治疗结果的研究。本荟萃分析的主要结局是骨折愈合时间、术后切出率和再次手术率。

结果

我们的综述纳入了 7 项研究,共涉及 353 例 BFNF 患者。其中,206 例患者接受 CMN 治疗,147 例患者接受 DHS 治疗。在汇总分析中,DHS 组达到骨折愈合的时间长于 CMN 组[平均差值(MD):-0.41;95%置信区间(CI):-0.70,-0.12;=0.006;I²=0%]。然而, DHS 和 CMN 组之间的切出率和再次手术率没有统计学差异[切出比值比(OR):0.54;95% CI:0.10,2.82;=0.47;I²=24%,再次手术率 OR:0.65;95% CI:0.15,2.86;=0.57;I²=19%]。

结论

在 BFNF 中,使用 DHS 和 CMN 进行稳定固定在临床或影像学上没有显著差异,可根据术者的偏好选择植入物。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ac63/9344276/453cab9abed6/ymj-63-744-g001.jpg

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