SICOT-J · 2019
Historically, did Cemented Thompson perform better than uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures? A meta-analysis of available evidence.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Shehata Mohamed S A, Abdelal Ahmed, Salahia Sami, Ahmed Hussien, Shawqi Muhammad, Elsehili Ahmed, Morsi Mahmoud, Afifi Ahmed M, Kader Nardeen, Grubhofer Florian, Sallam Asser, Imam Mohamed
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Thompson and Austin Moore prostheses have been commonly used in hemiarthroplasties for displaced femoral neck fractures. There has been considerable debate about which of these prostheses is preferred. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare historical data for clinical outcomes of cemented Thompson and uncemented Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty in displaced femoral neck fractures.
METHODS: We searched Medline via PubMed, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Ovid and Web of Science for relevant articles up to February 2019. The included outcomes measured were hip function, hip pain, implant-related complications, surgical complications, reoperation rate and hospital stay. The data were pooled as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two compared groups in a meta-analysis model.
RESULTS: Ten studies (four RCTs and six observational studies) with a total of 4378 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled RR showed that the Thompson group was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative hip pain (RR = 0.66, 95% CI [0.54, 0.80]), lesser reoperation rate (RR = 0.46, 95% CI [0.24, 0.88]), lesser intraoperative fractures (RR = 0.15, 95% CI [0.09, 0.25]), but a longer operative time (MD = 12.04 min, 95% CI [2.08, 22.00]) in comparison to the Austin Moore group. The effect estimate did not favour either group in terms of hip function, periprosthetic fractures, prosthetic dislocations, wound infection, mortality and hospital stay.
CONCLUSION: Evidence shows that Thompson hemiarthroplasty is better than Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty in terms of hip pain, reoperation rate and intraoperative fractures. Whereas the postoperative hip function is equivalent, these results could be considered when assessing the outcomes in modern hips.
METHODS: We searched Medline via PubMed, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Ovid and Web of Science for relevant articles up to February 2019. The included outcomes measured were hip function, hip pain, implant-related complications, surgical complications, reoperation rate and hospital stay. The data were pooled as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two compared groups in a meta-analysis model.
RESULTS: Ten studies (four RCTs and six observational studies) with a total of 4378 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled RR showed that the Thompson group was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative hip pain (RR = 0.66, 95% CI [0.54, 0.80]), lesser reoperation rate (RR = 0.46, 95% CI [0.24, 0.88]), lesser intraoperative fractures (RR = 0.15, 95% CI [0.09, 0.25]), but a longer operative time (MD = 12.04 min, 95% CI [2.08, 22.00]) in comparison to the Austin Moore group. The effect estimate did not favour either group in terms of hip function, periprosthetic fractures, prosthetic dislocations, wound infection, mortality and hospital stay.
CONCLUSION: Evidence shows that Thompson hemiarthroplasty is better than Austin Moore hemiarthroplasty in terms of hip pain, reoperation rate and intraoperative fractures. Whereas the postoperative hip function is equivalent, these results could be considered when assessing the outcomes in modern hips.