Foot and ankle surgery : official journal of the European Society of Foot and Ankle Surgeons · 2018
Return to sport following Lisfranc injuries: 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.
Robertson Gregory Aidan James, Ang Kok Kiong, Maffulli Nicola, Keenan Gary, Wood Alexander MacDonald
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Information regarding return rates (RR) and mean return times (RT) to sport following Lisfranc injuries remains limited.
METHODS: A systematic search of nine major databases was performed to identify all studies which recorded RR or RT to sport following lisfranc injuries.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included (n=366). For undisplaced (Stage 1) injuries managed nonoperatively (n=35), RR was 100% and RT was 4.0 (0-15) wks. For stable minimally-displaced (Stage 2) injuries managed nonoperatively (n=16), RR was 100% and RT was 9.1 (4-14) wks. For the operatively-managed injuries, Percutaneous Reduction Internal Fixation (PRIF) (n=42), showed significantly better RR and RT compared to both: Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) (n=139) (RR - 98% vs 78%, p<0.019; RT - 11.6 wks vs 19.6 wks, p<0.001); and Primary Partial Arthrodesis (PPA) (n=85) (RR - 98% vs 85%, p<0.047; RT - 11.6 wks vs 22.0 wks, p<0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: Stage 1 and stable Stage 2 Lisfranc injuries show good results with nonoperative management. PRIF offers the best RR and RT from the operative methods, though this may not be possible with high-energy injuries.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV. Systematic Review of Level I to Level IV Studies.
METHODS: A systematic search of nine major databases was performed to identify all studies which recorded RR or RT to sport following lisfranc injuries.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included (n=366). For undisplaced (Stage 1) injuries managed nonoperatively (n=35), RR was 100% and RT was 4.0 (0-15) wks. For stable minimally-displaced (Stage 2) injuries managed nonoperatively (n=16), RR was 100% and RT was 9.1 (4-14) wks. For the operatively-managed injuries, Percutaneous Reduction Internal Fixation (PRIF) (n=42), showed significantly better RR and RT compared to both: Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) (n=139) (RR - 98% vs 78%, p<0.019; RT - 11.6 wks vs 19.6 wks, p<0.001); and Primary Partial Arthrodesis (PPA) (n=85) (RR - 98% vs 85%, p<0.047; RT - 11.6 wks vs 22.0 wks, p<0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: Stage 1 and stable Stage 2 Lisfranc injuries show good results with nonoperative management. PRIF offers the best RR and RT from the operative methods, though this may not be possible with high-energy injuries.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV. Systematic Review of Level I to Level IV Studies.