Hasan S Umar, Pervez Alina, Usmani Shajie Ur Rehman, Tahseen Muhammad Umair, Asghar Sohaib, Ahmed Javeria Waseem, Manal Ishba
Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
J Orthop. 2023 Aug 16;44:5-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2023.08.005. eCollection 2023 Oct.
Supracondylar humeral fractures (SCHFs) rank among the frequently observed fractures in children. Nonetheless, there exists a dearth of consensus regarding the optimal surgical approach. This meta-analysis aims to thoroughly evaluate and compare two distinct pinning techniques (cross pinning versus lateral pinning) for SCHFs, using data from Randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Literature review was done using PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing the two pinning methods and providing information on at least one of the following: Loss of Baumann's angle, loss of carrying angle, elbow function assessed based on Flynn criteria, pin tract infection, and iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury. Random effect model was used to calculate standardized mean difference or Odds Ratio (OR) for the outcomes. Review Manager 5.4.1. was used to perform quality assessment and statistical analysis.
A total of 22 RCTs were included. 20 studies reported data for iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury, the OR was calculated to be 3.76 (95% CI 1.75-8.06), showing a significantly lower risk of surgical ulnar nerve injury with the lateral technique. However, no significant difference was found between the pinning techniques in regard to the other outcomes.
In comparison to lateral pinning, the utilization of cross pinning technique exposes the patient to a heightened susceptibility of iatrogenic nerve injury. Therefore, it is recommended that surgeons prioritize the implementation of the lateral pinning technique whenever feasible, as it offers greater protection against iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury. For the other intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, both surgical techniques yield comparable results.
肱骨髁上骨折(SCHFs)是儿童中常见的骨折类型。然而,关于最佳手术方法尚无共识。本荟萃分析旨在利用随机对照试验(RCT)的数据,全面评估和比较两种不同的穿针技术(交叉穿针与外侧穿针)治疗SCHFs的效果。
通过PubMed、CINAHL、Scopus和Cochrane图书馆进行文献检索,以查找比较这两种穿针方法并提供以下至少一项信息的RCT:鲍曼角丢失、提携角丢失、根据弗林标准评估的肘关节功能、针道感染和医源性尺神经损伤。采用随机效应模型计算各结局的标准化均数差或比值比(OR)。使用Review Manager 5.4.1进行质量评估和统计分析。
共纳入22项RCT。20项研究报告了医源性尺神经损伤的数据,计算得出的OR为3.76(95%CI 1.75 - 8.06),表明外侧技术导致手术性尺神经损伤的风险显著降低。然而,在其他结局方面,两种穿针技术之间未发现显著差异。
与外侧穿针相比,交叉穿针技术使患者面临更高的医源性神经损伤易感性。因此,建议外科医生在可行的情况下优先采用外侧穿针技术,因为它能更好地预防医源性尺神经损伤。对于其他术中及术后结局,两种手术技术产生的结果相当。