Injury · 2024
Prevalence of fracture progression in fragility fractures of the pelvis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Yamamoto Norio, Someko Hidehiro, Tsuge Takahiro, Nakashima Yuki, Nakao Shuri
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) are a growing problem in aging populations. Fracture progression (FP) occasionally occurs during FFP treatment; however, its prevalence remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prevalence of FP among patients with FFP.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. All cohort studies that reported the prevalence of FP in patients with FFP were included. FP was defined as the appearance of additional pelvic fractures after the initial FFP. We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases until April 2024. The pooled prevalence was generated using a random-effects model and presented as a 95 % confidence interval (CI) and prediction interval (PI). We assessed the risk of bias in each study using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool.
RESULTS: This review included eight studies (925 patients). The pooled prevalence of FP in patients with FFP was 11 % (95 % CI, 5-19 %; 95 % PI, 0-44 %). Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled prevalence of FP in patients with FFP (conservative treatment vs. surgery for initial FFP) was 16 % (95 % CI, 9-24 %) and 2 % (95 % CI, 0-11 %), respectively (test for subgroup difference, P = 0.03). Additional analysis showed that in patients with FP, the pooled prevalence of the fractured site (ipsilateral site, contralateral site, and both sites) was 66 %, 12 %, and 19 %, respectively. The pooled prevalence of fractured bone (pubis, ischium, ilium, and sacrum) was 25 %, 0 %, 15 %, and 68 %, respectively. The risk of bias in the patient sampling method and sufficient data analysis in all included studies was high.
CONCLUSION: This review suggests that the prevalence of FP in patients with FFP is relatively high. Clinicians should recognize FP as a possible diagnosis in patients experiencing additional pain after FFP. However, further prospective studies with adequate patient sampling are required to confirm the true prevalence.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. All cohort studies that reported the prevalence of FP in patients with FFP were included. FP was defined as the appearance of additional pelvic fractures after the initial FFP. We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases until April 2024. The pooled prevalence was generated using a random-effects model and presented as a 95 % confidence interval (CI) and prediction interval (PI). We assessed the risk of bias in each study using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool.
RESULTS: This review included eight studies (925 patients). The pooled prevalence of FP in patients with FFP was 11 % (95 % CI, 5-19 %; 95 % PI, 0-44 %). Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled prevalence of FP in patients with FFP (conservative treatment vs. surgery for initial FFP) was 16 % (95 % CI, 9-24 %) and 2 % (95 % CI, 0-11 %), respectively (test for subgroup difference, P = 0.03). Additional analysis showed that in patients with FP, the pooled prevalence of the fractured site (ipsilateral site, contralateral site, and both sites) was 66 %, 12 %, and 19 %, respectively. The pooled prevalence of fractured bone (pubis, ischium, ilium, and sacrum) was 25 %, 0 %, 15 %, and 68 %, respectively. The risk of bias in the patient sampling method and sufficient data analysis in all included studies was high.
CONCLUSION: This review suggests that the prevalence of FP in patients with FFP is relatively high. Clinicians should recognize FP as a possible diagnosis in patients experiencing additional pain after FFP. However, further prospective studies with adequate patient sampling are required to confirm the true prevalence.