Medicine · 2020
Cemented versus uncemented hemi-arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures in elderly patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический 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.
Li Na, Zhong Lei, Wang Chang, Xu Meng, Li Wei
Аннотация
AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients with femoral neck fracture.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for published randomized clinical trials comparing cemented hemiarthroplasty with uncemented hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients with a femoral neck fracture. The search was not limited to language, time, or other factors. The quality of each study was assessed using the revised Jadad scale. Two researchers independently extracted data from all selected studies, including the following base line data: study period, fracture stage, number of patients, male female ratio, average age, and per-protocol (PP) or intent-to-treat (ITT), and the interest outcomes: the mortality at 12 months, operative time, hospital stay, common complications, prosthetic-related complications, blood loss and Harris Hip Score (HHS). Fixed-effects or random-effects models with mean differences and odds ratios were used to pool the continuous and dichotomous variables to determine heterogeneity of the included studies.
RESULTS: A total of 8 studies involving 1577 hips (782 uncemented and 795 cemented) were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis is indicated that the operation time of cemented hemiarthroplasty was longer than uncemented hemiarthroplasty and there was statistical significance between two groups (OR = -7.30, 95%CI, -13.13, -1.46; P = .01). However, there was no significant difference between the two methods of fixation in mortality at 12 months (OR = 1.22, 95%CI, 0.94-1.59; P = .14), hospital stay (OR = 0.26, 95%CI, -0.41, 0.93; P = .44), blood loss (OR = -17.94, 95%CI, -65.83, 29.95; P = .46), and HHS score. There were significant differences in the common complications of pulmonary embolism between the two groups, but there were no differences in the other five common complications. The results showed that uncemented hemiarthroplasty could reduce the incidence of pulmonary embolism after operation. Moreover, the outcomes of prosthetic-related complications showed that there were significant differences between the two groups in periprosthetic fracture (OR = 8.32, 95%CI, 3.85-17.98; P < .00001) and prosthetic subsidence and loosening (OR = 5.33, 95%CI, 2.18-13.00; P = .0002).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that uncemented prosthesis can shorten the operation time and reduce the incidence of pulmonary embolism, but it does not reduce mortality, blood loss, and hospital stay. Most importantly, the incidence of prosthetic-related complications was higher in uncemented patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for published randomized clinical trials comparing cemented hemiarthroplasty with uncemented hemiarthroplasty in elderly patients with a femoral neck fracture. The search was not limited to language, time, or other factors. The quality of each study was assessed using the revised Jadad scale. Two researchers independently extracted data from all selected studies, including the following base line data: study period, fracture stage, number of patients, male female ratio, average age, and per-protocol (PP) or intent-to-treat (ITT), and the interest outcomes: the mortality at 12 months, operative time, hospital stay, common complications, prosthetic-related complications, blood loss and Harris Hip Score (HHS). Fixed-effects or random-effects models with mean differences and odds ratios were used to pool the continuous and dichotomous variables to determine heterogeneity of the included studies.
RESULTS: A total of 8 studies involving 1577 hips (782 uncemented and 795 cemented) were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis is indicated that the operation time of cemented hemiarthroplasty was longer than uncemented hemiarthroplasty and there was statistical significance between two groups (OR = -7.30, 95%CI, -13.13, -1.46; P = .01). However, there was no significant difference between the two methods of fixation in mortality at 12 months (OR = 1.22, 95%CI, 0.94-1.59; P = .14), hospital stay (OR = 0.26, 95%CI, -0.41, 0.93; P = .44), blood loss (OR = -17.94, 95%CI, -65.83, 29.95; P = .46), and HHS score. There were significant differences in the common complications of pulmonary embolism between the two groups, but there were no differences in the other five common complications. The results showed that uncemented hemiarthroplasty could reduce the incidence of pulmonary embolism after operation. Moreover, the outcomes of prosthetic-related complications showed that there were significant differences between the two groups in periprosthetic fracture (OR = 8.32, 95%CI, 3.85-17.98; P < .00001) and prosthetic subsidence and loosening (OR = 5.33, 95%CI, 2.18-13.00; P = .0002).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that uncemented prosthesis can shorten the operation time and reduce the incidence of pulmonary embolism, but it does not reduce mortality, blood loss, and hospital stay. Most importantly, the incidence of prosthetic-related complications was higher in uncemented patients.