Department of Orthopedics, The 909th Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Zhangzhou, China.
School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Feb 10;102(6):e32920. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032920.
The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) versus dynamic hip screw (DHS) for the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures, including the available evidence drawn from the literature.
A systematic search was conducted to identify available and relevant randomized controlled trials and retrospective comparative observational studies regarding PFNA compared against DHS in treating unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus Online up to February 12, 2022. Data from the included studies were extracted independently by 2 reviewers and analyzed using RevMan 5.3, and the quality of the studies was assessed.
Five randomized controlled trials and 12 observational studies were recruited and met the inclusion criteria, which consisted of 1332 patients with PFNA and 1271 patients with DHS. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with the DHS, PFNA exhibited a beneficial role in postoperative Harris Hip Scores, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, fracture healing time and full weight-bearing time, limb shortening, cutout, reoperation, union problems, the varus collapse of the femoral head/neck, and infection; however, DHS was superior to PFNA in hidden blood loss (relative risk [RR] = 139.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] [136.18, 143.43], P < .00001), postoperation drainage (RR = -17.85, 95% CI [-30.10, -5.60], P = .004), total blood loss (RR = 50.34, 95% CI [42.99, 57.69], P < .00001), and femoral shaft fracture (RR = 4.72, 95% CI [1.15, 19.32], P = .03) treated by DHS were significantly decreased, compared with those by PFNA; however, no significant differences were observed in tip-apex distance, fixation failures, screw migration, or other complicants between the 2 surgical methods.
Analysis of a large number of relevant clinical indicators available shows that PFNA has better clinical manifestation than DHS in treating unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures.
本荟萃分析旨在评估股骨近端抗旋髓内钉(PFNA)与动力髋螺钉(DHS)治疗不稳定型股骨转子间骨折的优缺点,包括从文献中获得的现有证据。
系统检索 Embase、PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、Web of Science 和 Scopus Online 数据库,以获取截至 2022 年 2 月 12 日有关 PFNA 与 DHS 治疗不稳定股骨转子间骨折的随机对照试验和回顾性比较观察性研究的相关文献。由 2 名评价员独立提取纳入研究的数据,并采用 RevMan 5.3 进行分析,同时评估研究质量。
共纳入 5 项随机对照试验和 12 项观察性研究,共 1332 例患者接受 PFNA 治疗,1271 例患者接受 DHS 治疗。荟萃分析结果显示,与 DHS 相比,PFNA 在术后 Harris 髋关节评分、手术时间、术中失血量、住院时间、骨折愈合时间和完全负重时间、肢体短缩、切出、再次手术、愈合问题、股骨头/颈内翻塌陷和感染方面具有优势;然而, DHS 在隐性失血(相对风险 [RR] = 139.81,95%置信区间 [CI] [136.18,143.43],P <.00001)、术后引流(RR = -17.85,95%CI [-30.10,-5.60],P =.004)、总失血量(RR = 50.34,95%CI [42.99,57.69],P <.00001)和股骨干骨折(RR = 4.72,95%CI [1.15,19.32],P =.03)方面优于 PFNA。然而,两种手术方法在尖端-顶点距离、固定失败、螺钉迁移或其他并发症方面无显著差异。
对大量相关临床指标的分析表明,PFNA 在治疗不稳定型股骨转子间骨折方面的临床疗效优于 DHS。