Foot and ankle surgery : official journal of the European Society of Foot and Ankle Surgeons · 2018
Clinical effectiveness and safety of Weil's osteotomy and distal metatarsal mini-invasive osteotomy (DMMO) in the treatment of metatarsalgia: A systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rivero-Santana Amado, Perestelo-Pérez Lilisbeth, Garcés Gerardo, Álvarez-Pérez Yolanda, Escobar Antonio, Serrano-Aguilar Pedro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Weil's osteotomy (WO) is the most applied surgical treatment for metatarsalgia, a persistent pain in the lesser metatarsals' heads. We aim to review its effectiveness and safety compared to the percutaneous technique known as distal metatarsal mini-invasive osteotomy (DMMO).
METHODS: Systematic review in Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cinahl and Cochrane Library. We included studies that directly compared WO and DMMO for the treatment of primary metatarsalgia. Data on pain, function, complications and patients' satisfaction were extracted and narratively synthesized.
RESULTS: Four retrospective studies were identified. There were no significant differences in clinical effectiveness or patients' satisfaction. Time to bone healing was significantly longer for DMMO, whereas WO showed more wound problems and metatarsophalangeal stiffness. Other complications were infrequent in the two procedures.
CONCLUSION: Evidence on the direct comparison of WO and DMMO is scarce and of low quality. Randomized studies are needed in order to control for potential confounders.
METHODS: Systematic review in Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cinahl and Cochrane Library. We included studies that directly compared WO and DMMO for the treatment of primary metatarsalgia. Data on pain, function, complications and patients' satisfaction were extracted and narratively synthesized.
RESULTS: Four retrospective studies were identified. There were no significant differences in clinical effectiveness or patients' satisfaction. Time to bone healing was significantly longer for DMMO, whereas WO showed more wound problems and metatarsophalangeal stiffness. Other complications were infrequent in the two procedures.
CONCLUSION: Evidence on the direct comparison of WO and DMMO is scarce and of low quality. Randomized studies are needed in order to control for potential confounders.