Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2017
Clinical efficacy and safety of limited internal fixation combined with external fixation for Pilon fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический 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.
Zhang Shao-Bo, Zhang Yi-Bao, Wang Sheng-Hong, Zhang Hua, Liu Peng, Zhang Wei, Ma Jing-Lin, Wang Jing
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical efficacy and complications of limited internal fixation combined with external fixation (LIFEF) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of Pilon fracture.
METHODS: We searched databases including Pubmed, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane Library and China Biology Medicine disc for the studies comparing clinical efficacy and complications of LIFEF and ORIF in the treatment of Pilon fracture. The clinical efficacy was evaluated by the rate of nonunion, malunion/delayed union and the excellent/good rate assessed by Mazur ankle score. The complications including infections and arthritis symptoms after surgery were also investigated.
RESULTS: Nine trials including 498 pilon fractures of 494 patients were identified. The meta-analysis found no significant differences in nonunion rate (RR = 1.60, 95% CI: 0.66 to 3.86, p = 0.30), and the excellent/good rate (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.04, p = 0.28) between LIFEF group and ORIF group. For assessment of infections, there were significant differences in the rate of deep infection (RR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.34 to 3.55, p = 0.002), and the rate of arthritis (RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.53, p = 0.02) between LIFEF group and ORIF group.
CONCLUSION: LIFEF has similar effect as ORIF in the treatment of pilon fractures, however, LIFEF group has significantly higher risk of complications than ORIF group does. So LIFEF is not recommended in the treatment of pilon fracture.
METHODS: We searched databases including Pubmed, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane Library and China Biology Medicine disc for the studies comparing clinical efficacy and complications of LIFEF and ORIF in the treatment of Pilon fracture. The clinical efficacy was evaluated by the rate of nonunion, malunion/delayed union and the excellent/good rate assessed by Mazur ankle score. The complications including infections and arthritis symptoms after surgery were also investigated.
RESULTS: Nine trials including 498 pilon fractures of 494 patients were identified. The meta-analysis found no significant differences in nonunion rate (RR = 1.60, 95% CI: 0.66 to 3.86, p = 0.30), and the excellent/good rate (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.04, p = 0.28) between LIFEF group and ORIF group. For assessment of infections, there were significant differences in the rate of deep infection (RR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.34 to 3.55, p = 0.002), and the rate of arthritis (RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.53, p = 0.02) between LIFEF group and ORIF group.
CONCLUSION: LIFEF has similar effect as ORIF in the treatment of pilon fractures, however, LIFEF group has significantly higher risk of complications than ORIF group does. So LIFEF is not recommended in the treatment of pilon fracture.