Suppr超能文献

外固定与髓内钉治疗开放性胫骨骨折的比较:随机对照试验的荟萃分析。

External fixation versus intramedullary nailing for the management of open tibial fracture: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

机构信息

College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdelaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

出版信息

Int Orthop. 2023 Dec;47(12):3077-3097. doi: 10.1007/s00264-023-05879-7. Epub 2023 Jul 26.

Abstract

AIM

Tibial shaft fractures are the most common type of long-bone fractures. External fixation (EF) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) are widely used surgical techniques for the definitive fixation of open tibial shaft fractures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare EF to IMN for the definitive fixation of open tibial fractures.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for eligible studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared EF to IMN for skeletally mature adults with open tibial fracture (Gustilo I, II, and III). We evaluated the following outcomes: superficial infection, pin-track infection, deep infection, malunion, nonunion, delayed union, and implant/hardware failure. The risk ratio (RR) was used to represent the desired outcomes. The statistical analysis was performed using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 12 RCTs that enrolled 1090 participants were deemed eligible for the analysis. EF showed a significantly higher rate of superficial infection, pin track infection, and malunion compared to IMN (RR = 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34 to 3.95; RR = 13.52, 95% CI: 6.16 to 29.66; RR = 2.29, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.73, respectively). No substantial difference was found between EF and IMN in terms of deep infection, nonunion, delayed union, or implant/hardware failure (RR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.98; RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; RR = 1.50, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.33; RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.60, respectively).

DISCUSSION

The findings of our meta-analysis are consistent with the previous systematic reviews excepts for the implant/hardware failure which was found to be significant in favour of IMN by one of the previous reviews.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirms that IMN is better than EF with respect to clinical outcomes and complication rate for the definitive fixation of open tibial fracture.

摘要

目的

胫骨骨干骨折是最常见的长骨骨折类型。外固定架(EF)和髓内钉(IMN)是广泛用于开放性胫骨骨干骨折确定性固定的手术技术。本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是比较 EF 与 IMN 治疗开放性胫骨骨折的疗效。

方法

检索 Medline、Embase 和 CENTRAL 数据库,以确定符合条件的研究。我们纳入了比较 EF 与 IMN 治疗成人开放性胫骨骨折(Gustilo I、II 和 III 型)的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们评估了以下结果:浅表感染、钉道感染、深部感染、畸形愈合、骨不连、延迟愈合和植入物/硬件失败。风险比(RR)用于表示预期结果。使用随机效应模型进行统计分析。

结果

共纳入 12 项 RCT,纳入 1090 名参与者,符合分析条件。与 IMN 相比,EF 显示出更高的浅表感染、钉道感染和畸形愈合发生率(RR=2.30,95%置信区间(CI):1.34 至 3.95;RR=13.52,95% CI:6.16 至 29.66;RR=2.29,95% CI 1.41 至 3.73)。EF 与 IMN 在深部感染、骨不连、延迟愈合或植入物/硬件失败方面无显著差异(RR=1.15,95% CI 0.67 至 1.98;RR=0.92,95% CI 0.77 至 1.10;RR=1.50,95% CI 0.98 至 3.33;RR=0.96,95% CI 0.36 至 2.60)。

讨论

除了一项先前的综述发现植入物/硬件失败有利于 IMN 外,我们的荟萃分析结果与先前的系统评价一致。

结论

本荟萃分析证实,IMN 在开放性胫骨骨折的确定性固定方面优于 EF,在临床结果和并发症发生率方面更具优势。

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