Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
Department of Orthopaedics, University College of Medical Sciences and GTB Hospital, Delhi, India.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2024 Oct;34(7):3409-3421. doi: 10.1007/s00590-024-03885-y. Epub 2024 Mar 7.
The pararectus approach is a minimally invasive surgical approach for anterior acetabulum fracture, with an advantage of the medial window of the modified Stoppa approach (MSA). However, it is unclear whether the pararectus approach is superior to MSA. We aimed this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes and complications of pararectus and MSA.
We performed a data search by conducting an electronic search across databases of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cinahl, CNKI, and Cochrane Library and included seven comparative studies for analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan software 5.4.1. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool for RCTs and the MINORS tool for non-RCTs.
Two randomized control trials (RCTs), one prospective study, and four retrospective studies were included. Meta-analysis revealed a better Matta's reduction quality [OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06, 2.37; p = 0.03] and radiological outcome [OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.03, 4.60; p = 0.04] in MSA than in pararectus approach. However, the pararectus approach has less intraoperative blood loss [MD - 9.79 (95% CI - 176.75, - 6.83; p = 0.03)] and a shorter hospital stay [MD - 2.61 (95% CI - 5.03, - .18; p = 0.04)] than MSA. Both approaches have failed to show a difference concerning overall complication rates [OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.28, 1.55; p = 0.34)], postoperative infection, DVT, duration of surgery [MD - 15.09 (95% CI - 35.38, 5.20; p = 0.15)], functional outcome, and incision length.
The pararectus approach offers an advantage with lesser operative blood loss and shorter hospital stay, whilst MSA stands out with better reduction quality and radiological outcomes. Nevertheless, both approaches exhibit no difference in complication rates, duration of surgery, incision length, and functional outcome. Hence, the pararectus approach can be considered an alternative to MSA; however, the existing literature fails to demonstrate a distinct advantage over MSA.
经腹直肌旁入路是一种微创治疗前髋臼骨折的手术方法,具有改良Stoppa 入路(MSA)内侧窗口的优势。然而,目前尚不清楚经腹直肌旁入路是否优于 MSA。我们旨在进行这项系统评价和荟萃分析,以比较经腹直肌旁入路和 MSA 的结果和并发症。
我们通过在 PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Cinahl、CNKI 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行电子检索进行了数据搜索,并纳入了 7 项比较研究进行分析。使用 RevMan 软件 5.4.1 进行统计分析。使用 Cochrane 协作的 RCT 偏倚风险工具和非 RCT 的 MINORS 工具评估偏倚风险。
纳入了 2 项随机对照试验(RCT)、1 项前瞻性研究和 4 项回顾性研究。荟萃分析显示,MSA 的 Matta 复位质量[OR 1.58,95%CI 1.06,2.37;p=0.03]和影像学结果[OR 2.18,95%CI 1.03,4.60;p=0.04]优于经腹直肌旁入路。然而,经腹直肌旁入路术中出血量较少[MD-9.79(95%CI-176.75,-6.83;p=0.03)],住院时间较短[MD-2.61(95%CI-5.03,-.18;p=0.04)]。两种方法在总体并发症发生率[OR 0.66(95%CI 0.28,1.55;p=0.34)]、术后感染、DVT、手术时间[MD-15.09(95%CI-35.38,5.20;p=0.15)]、功能结局和切口长度方面均无差异。
经腹直肌旁入路具有手术出血量少、住院时间短的优势,而 MSA 则具有更好的复位质量和影像学结果。然而,两种方法在并发症发生率、手术时间、切口长度和功能结局方面均无差异。因此,经腹直肌旁入路可以作为 MSA 的一种替代方法;然而,现有文献未能证明其优于 MSA。