Chen Keyi, Yang Shun, Cheng Yabo, Xiang Wang
Department of Hand and Wrist Surgery, Sichuan Province Orthopaedic Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2025 Feb 7;104(6):e41434. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000041434.
In recent years, there has been an increasing trend in the use of wrist arthroscopy to facilitate the treatment of distal radius fractures using open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). However, there is no consensus on its superiority despite some previous studies comparing these 2 surgical techniques. Hence, this study sought to conduct a systematic comparison of the effectiveness and safety of arthroscopic-assisted open reduction and internal fixation (AAORIF) and fluoroscopic-assisted open reduction and internal fixation (FAORIF) in the management of distal radius fractures.
A comprehensive search was conducted in multiple databases to acquire all literature published until January 31st, 2024, comparing AAORIF versus FAORIF for the treatment of distal radius fracture, without any language or publication status restrictions. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.4 software was used to perform a meta-analysis.
Five randomized controlled trials (169 patients in the AAORIF group and 171 patients in the FAORIF group) suggested that patients with distal radius fracture treated with AAORIF had better disability of arm, shoulder, and hand scores, visual analog scale score, and wrist extension than those treated with FAORIF. However, no significant differences were observed in terms of wrist flexion, pronation, supination, operative time, and complication outcomes between the 2 groups.
Despite the lack of significant differences in wrist flexion, pronation, supination, operative time, and complication outcomes between the 2 groups, the AAORIF group had more obvious advantages in terms of disability of arm, shoulder, and hand scores, visual analog scale score, and wrist extension based on the above results. We believe that treatment of distal radius fracture with AAORIF may be an optimal option compared with FAORIF. Absolutely, and additional high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to establish stronger evidence regarding this subject.
近年来,使用腕关节镜辅助切开复位内固定术(ORIF)治疗桡骨远端骨折的趋势日益增加。然而,尽管先前有一些研究比较了这两种手术技术,但对于其优越性尚无共识。因此,本研究旨在对关节镜辅助切开复位内固定术(AAORIF)和透视辅助切开复位内固定术(FAORIF)治疗桡骨远端骨折的有效性和安全性进行系统比较。
在多个数据库中进行全面检索,以获取截至2024年1月31日发表的所有比较AAORIF与FAORIF治疗桡骨远端骨折的文献,无任何语言或发表状态限制。使用Cochrane协作网的RevMan 5.4软件进行荟萃分析。
五项随机对照试验(AAORIF组169例患者,FAORIF组171例患者)表明,与接受FAORIF治疗的患者相比,接受AAORIF治疗的桡骨远端骨折患者在手臂、肩部和手部功能障碍评分、视觉模拟量表评分和腕关节伸展方面表现更好。然而,两组在腕关节屈曲、旋前、旋后、手术时间和并发症结果方面未观察到显著差异。
尽管两组在腕关节屈曲、旋前、旋后、手术时间和并发症结果方面没有显著差异,但根据上述结果,AAORIF组在手臂、肩部和手部功能障碍评分、视觉模拟量表评分和腕关节伸展方面具有更明显的优势。我们认为,与FAORIF相比,AAORIF治疗桡骨远端骨折可能是一个最佳选择。当然,需要更多高质量、大样本量的研究来为此主题提供更有力的证据。