MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of orthopaedics · 2024
Open versus closed reduction and internal fixation in children with femoral neck fractures. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Abdel-Wahed Mohamed, Elmahdy Ismail Mohammed, Galal Ahmed Amin, Elsary Asmaa Younis, Abdel-Ghani Hisham, Yasin Ebeed
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Femoral neck fractures in children are uncommon, making up little more than 1% of all paediatric fractures. It's not apparent which type of internal fixation-closed or open-is preferable in these situations when it comes to therapeutic options. When treating children with displaced femoral neck fractures, serious problems can arise.
METHODS: Five databases were examined: Medline Plus, PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science. The outcomes that were relevant for the meta-analysis were non-union, coxa vara, and avascular necrosis. Using the RevMan file, we extracted the data and carried out the analysis (Review Manager Version 5.3).
RESULTS: 294 patients had ORIF procedures and 266 patients had CRIF procedures in the included trials. Regarding the outcome of avascular necrosis, we discovered that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (RR = 0.84, [95% confidence range (CI) = 0.60, 1.18], P = 0.32). There was homogeneity in the data (P = 0.22, I2 = 27%). When it came to coxa vara, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (RR = 0.69, [95% CI = 0.30, 1.58], P = 0.38). There was homogeneity in the data (P = 0.22, I2 = 27%). Regarding non-union, the similar outcome was seen (RR = 0.45, [95% CI = 0.16, 1.14], P = 0.12). There was homogeneity in the data (P = 0.49, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSION: Regarding reducing the risk of non-union, coxa vara, and avascular necrosis, we did not find any difference between CRIF and ORIF. To validate this outcome, however, additional research on the various variables (fracture type, age, displacement, fixation technique, and duration of surgery) is required. Sorting patients based on the kind of fracture will ensure that the right approach is used for each type.
METHODS: Five databases were examined: Medline Plus, PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science. The outcomes that were relevant for the meta-analysis were non-union, coxa vara, and avascular necrosis. Using the RevMan file, we extracted the data and carried out the analysis (Review Manager Version 5.3).
RESULTS: 294 patients had ORIF procedures and 266 patients had CRIF procedures in the included trials. Regarding the outcome of avascular necrosis, we discovered that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (RR = 0.84, [95% confidence range (CI) = 0.60, 1.18], P = 0.32). There was homogeneity in the data (P = 0.22, I2 = 27%). When it came to coxa vara, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (RR = 0.69, [95% CI = 0.30, 1.58], P = 0.38). There was homogeneity in the data (P = 0.22, I2 = 27%). Regarding non-union, the similar outcome was seen (RR = 0.45, [95% CI = 0.16, 1.14], P = 0.12). There was homogeneity in the data (P = 0.49, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSION: Regarding reducing the risk of non-union, coxa vara, and avascular necrosis, we did not find any difference between CRIF and ORIF. To validate this outcome, however, additional research on the various variables (fracture type, age, displacement, fixation technique, and duration of surgery) is required. Sorting patients based on the kind of fracture will ensure that the right approach is used for each type.