-
Journal of Orthopaedics Feb 2023The surgical treatment for distal femur fractures has evolved over time, and it depends upon certain factors; open or closed fracture type, the pattern of fracture,... (Review)
Review
Comparison of outcomes of retrograde intramedullary nailing versus locking plate fixation in distal femur fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 936 patients in 16 studies.
BACKGROUND
The surgical treatment for distal femur fractures has evolved over time, and it depends upon certain factors; open or closed fracture type, the pattern of fracture, presence of metaphyseal comminution, intra-articular extension, and the bone quality are some of the crucial ones. Both retrograde intramedullary nails (RIMN) and locking plates (LP) can be used for the fixation of these fractures. However, the optimal method among the two devices is still a topic of debate, the superiority of one over the other being unclear. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conceptualized to compare the outcomes of RIMN with distal femur LP.
METHODS
The primary electronic search was conducted on Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Embase, Cinahl, and Cochrane Library databases for the published literature from the inception to 25 February 2022. The studies compared outcomes of RIMN versus LP fixation of the acute supracondylar or distal femur fracture (AO/OTA type-33A, B, and C) and reported at least one primary (mean fracture union time, complications, implant-related complications, and re-operation rate) or secondary outcome (duration of surgery, intra-operative blood loss, and knee range of motion), were included.
RESULTS
Six randomized control trials, 2 prospective and 8 retrospective studies with 936 patients with 8 bilateral cases (467: RIMN; 477: LP) were included. Our analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in terms of mean fracture union time, overall complications, implant-related complications, re-operation rates, and duration of surgeries. Although a better knee range of motion was seen in the LP group, however, it also showed more nonunion and infection than the RIMN group.
CONCLUSION
The present review shows that there are significantly lesser nonunions and infections, in the RIMN group as compared to LP for distal femur fractures, although a better postoperative knee range of motion was seen in the latter. However, in terms of fracture union time, the overall rate of complications, re-operation rates, and duration of surgeries, there is no difference between the two surgical options.
PubMed: 36591439
DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2022.12.007 -
BMJ Open Oct 2021Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most important risk factors of diabetic foot ulcers, and early screening and treatment of DPN are crucial. The Ipswich... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most important risk factors of diabetic foot ulcers, and early screening and treatment of DPN are crucial. The Ipswich Touch Test (IPTT) is a new method for screening for DPN and, compared with traditional methods, is more simple to operate and requires no equipment. However, the screening accuracy of IPTT in patients with DPN has not been well characterised. We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to characterise the sensitivity and specificity of IPTT compared with traditional methods and to understand the potential screening value of IPTT.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database up to 16 April 2020.
METHODS
Stata V.15.1 software was used for analysis, and the screening value of IPTT in DPN was described using 10 g monofilament (10g-MF), neuropathy disability scores (NDS), Pin prick, 128 Hz tuning fork, and ankle reflex as reference standards. Sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy of IPTT for screening DPN were pooled based on a quality effects model. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (42020168420).
RESULTS
Of the 441 records retrieved, 7 studies were evaluated for the screening value of IPTT. Five studies with 10g-MF as the reference standard were included in the meta-analysis, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.77 (95%CI 0.69-0.84) and 0.96(95%CI 0.93-0.98), respectively, and the area under curve was 0.897. Compared with vibration perception threshold, IPTT showed a sensitivity between 0.76 and 1, and a specificity between 0.90 and 0.97. Compared with NDS, IPTT showed a sensitivity between 0.53 and 1, and a specificity between 0.90 and 0.97. Compared with Pin prick, IPTT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 0.8 and 0.88, respectively. Compared with 128 Hz tuning fork, IPTT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 0.4 and 0.27, respectively. Compared with ankle reflex, IPTT had a sensitivity of 0.2 and a specificity of 0.97.
CONCLUSIONS
IPTT shows a high degree of agreement with other commonly used screening tools for DPN screening. It can be used clinically, especially in remote areas and in primary medical institutions, and by self-monitoring patients. More high-quality studies are needed to assess and promote more effective screening practices.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
Registration Number is CRD (42020168420).
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Foot; Diabetic Neuropathies; Humans; Touch; Touch Perception; Vibration
PubMed: 34607858
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046966 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Anophthalmia is the absence of one or both eyes, and it can be congenital (i.e. a birth defect) or acquired later in life. There are two main types of orbital implant:... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Anophthalmia is the absence of one or both eyes, and it can be congenital (i.e. a birth defect) or acquired later in life. There are two main types of orbital implant: integrated, whereby the implant receives a blood supply from the body that allows for the integration of the prosthesis within the tissue; and non-integrated, where the implant remains separate. Despite the remarkable progress in anophthalmic socket reconstruction and in the development of various types of implants, there are still uncertainties about the real roles of integrated (hydroxyapatite (HA), porous polyethylene (PP), composites) and non-integrated (polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)/acrylic and silicone) orbital implants in anophthalmic socket treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of integrated versus non-integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2016), Embase (January 1980 to August 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to August 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 8 August 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of integrated and non-integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies with a total of 284 participants (250 included in analysis). The studies were conducted in India, Iran and the Netherlands. The three studies were clinically heterogenous, comparing different materials and using different surgical techniques. None of the included studies used a peg (i.e. a fixing pin used to connect the implant to the prosthesis). In general the trials were poorly reported, and we judged them to be at unclear risk of bias.One trial compared HA using traditional enucleation versus alloplastic implantation using evisceration (N = 100). This trial was probably not masked. The second trial compared PP with scleral cap enucleation versus PMMA with either myoconjunctival or traditional enucleation (N = 150). Although participants were not masked, outcome assessors were. The last trial compared HA and acrylic using the enucleation technique (N = 34) but did not report comparative effectiveness data.In the trial comparing HA versus alloplastic implantation, there was no evidence of any difference between the two groups with respect to the proportion of successful procedures at one year (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.09, N = 100, low-certainty evidence). People receiving HA had slightly worse horizontal implant mobility compared to the alloplastic group (mean difference (MD) -3.35 mm, 95% CI -4.08 to -2.62, very low-certainty evidence) and slightly worse vertical implant motility (MD -2.76 mm, 95% CI -3.45 to -2.07, very low-certainty evidence). As different techniques were used - enucleation versus evisceration - it is not clear whether these differences in implant motility can be attributed solely to the type of material. Investigators did not report adverse events.In the trial comparing PP versus PMMA, there was no evidence of any difference between the two groups with respect to the proportion of successful procedures at one year (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01, N = 150, low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence of a difference in horizontal implant motility depending on whether PP was compared to PMMA with traditional enucleation (MD 1.96 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.91) or PMMA with myoconjunctival enucleation (-0.57 mm, 95% CI -1.63 to 0.49). Similarly, for vertical implant motility, there was very low-certainty evidence of a difference in the comparison of PP to PMMA traditional (MD 3.12 mm 95% CI 2.36 to 3.88) but no evidence of a difference when comparing PP to PMMA myoconjunctival (MD -0.20 mm 95% CI -1.28 to 0.88). Four people in the PP group (total N = 50) experienced adverse events (i.e. exposures) compared to 6/100 in the PMMA groups (RR 17.82, 95% CI 0.98 to 324.67, N = 150, very low-certainty evidence).None of the studies reported socket sphere size, cosmetic effect or quality of life measures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current very low-certainty evidence from three small published randomised controlled trials did not provide sufficient evidence to assess the effect of integrated and non-integrated material orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets. This review underlines the need to conduct further well-designed trials in this field.
Topics: Anophthalmos; Durapatite; Eye Enucleation; Eye Evisceration; Humans; Orbital Implants; Polyethylene; Polymethyl Methacrylate; Prosthesis Design; Prosthesis Implantation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27820878
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010293.pub2 -
International Orthopaedics Dec 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of open- versus closed-reduction and intramedullary nailing (IMN) of adult femur shaft fractures. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of open- versus closed-reduction and intramedullary nailing (IMN) of adult femur shaft fractures.
METHODS
Four databases were searched from inception until July 2022 for original studies that compared the outcomes of IMN following open-reduction versus closed-reduction technique. The primary outcome was the union rate; the secondary outcomes were time to union, nonunion, malalignment, revision, and infection. This review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies with 1299 (1346 IMN cases) patients were included, with a mean age of 32.3 ± 3.25. The average follow-up was 2.3 ± 1.45 years. There was a statistically significant difference in union rate (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.97; p-value, 0.0352), nonunion (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.23-3.44; p-value, 0.0056), and infection rate (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25; p-value, 0.0114) between the open-reduction and closed-reduction groups in favour of the latter. However, malalignment was significantly higher in the closed-reduction group (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.64; p-value, 0.0012), whereas time to union and revision rates were similar (p = NS).
CONCLUSION
This study showed that closed-reduction and IMN had more favourable union rate, nonunion, and infection rates than the open-reduction group, yet malalignment was significantly less in the open-reduction group. Moreover, time to union and revision rates were comparable. However, these results must be interpreted in context due to confounding effects and the lack of high-quality studies.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Femoral Fractures; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary; Open Fracture Reduction; Reoperation; Bone Nails; Femur; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies; Fracture Healing; Fractures, Open
PubMed: 36864184
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-023-05740-x -
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Sep 2022Tibia fractures are the most common long bone injuries encountered in the trauma population. The majority are treated successfully but non-union remains a common...
INTRODUCTION
Tibia fractures are the most common long bone injuries encountered in the trauma population. The majority are treated successfully but non-union remains a common complication. A systematic review of current evidence regarding the management for aseptic diaphyseal tibial non-unions was undertaken.
METHODS
A systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), was conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 632 publications were screened for inclusion. Full text review of 91 studies resulted in 26 publications being retained for final review. The majority of patients included in the studies either underwent exchange nailing (n=315) or primary intramedullary nailing (n=174) with respective union rates of 88% and 95% being achieved. The highest union rate (97%) was achieved with the use of fine wire external fixation. The major adjuvant treatment modalities were fibula osteotomies (n=372; 41%), fixation dynamization (n=208; 23%) and bone grafting (n=183; 20%).
CONCLUSION
The lack of standardization in reporting of outcomes and the diversity of management strategies employed precludes definitive conclusions or recommendations. Further research is required to ascertain the ideal treatment strategy in the management of aseptic tibial diaphyseal non-unions.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
IV.
Topics: Bone Nails; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary; Fracture Healing; Fractures, Ununited; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Tibia; Tibial Fractures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34146753
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102990 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Apr 2018The standard treatment for severe displaced pediatric supracondylar humeral fracture (SCHF) is closed reduction and percutaneous pin fixation. However, controversy... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The standard treatment for severe displaced pediatric supracondylar humeral fracture (SCHF) is closed reduction and percutaneous pin fixation. However, controversy persists concerning the optimal pin fixation technique. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy on the configuration of lateral entry only with crossed entry pin fixation for SCHF, including Gartland type II and type III fractures in children.
METHODS
Published literatures, including retrospective studies, prospective studies, and randomized controlled trials, presenting the probability of poor functional consequence of elbow and/or loss of reduction and/or iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury and/or superficial infection and/or cubitus varus were included. Statistical analysis was performed with the Review Manager 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies were included in the present meta-analysis involving 1163 patients with lateral entry pins and 1059 patients with crossed entry pins. An excellent score of Flynn criteria occurred more commonly in patients who treated with crossed pins than in patients with lateral pins only (RR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.87-0.99; P = 0.03). In accordance with previous systematic review, the incidence of iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury in crossed entry group was significantly more than in lateral entry group with statistical difference (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.14-0.47; P < 0.0001). And, results of subgroup analysis on iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury based on experimental design of retrospective study (RR = 0.23; 95% CI 0.10-0.52; P < 0.0004) and randomized control trial (RR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.10-0.79; P < 0.02) were similar.
CONCLUSIONS
In consideration of the contradictoriness of lateral entry with two pins only (possible risk of poor functional consequence of elbow) and crossed entry pins (risk of iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury), the recommended strategy for the treatment of SCHF is the lateral entry technique with introducing divergent three pins which can provide a stable configuration and avoid the injury of the ulnar nerve. And additional protective measures for the ulnar nerve should be taken by surgeons that wish for the more stable structure with the crossed entry technique.
Topics: Bone Nails; Elbow Joint; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Humans; Humeral Fractures; Radiography; Range of Motion, Articular; Ulnar Nerve
PubMed: 29615086
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-018-0768-3 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Aug 2023The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of the Ilizarov method in the treatment of radius and ulna bone defects. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of the Ilizarov method in the treatment of radius and ulna bone defects.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, and Scopus databases were searched for articles published up to May 2023. The quality of the studies was evaluated using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The effect size and confidence intervals at 95% for the main results were calculated. The heterogeneity was evaluated. The demographic data, defect size (DS), external fixation time (EFT), external fixation index (EFI), and complications were extracted and analyzed using the Stata version 16.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis identified and included seven studies involving 98 patients. The union rate of 100% was reported in all studies. According to the findings of the single-arm meta-analysis, the pooled DS was 3.42 cm (95% CI [2.64, 4.21], I = 53.5%, P = 0.045), EFT was 148.43 days (95% CI [97.49, 199.38], I = 91.9%, P = 0.000), and EFI was 41.32 days/cm (95% CI [35.72, 46.91], I = 62.2%, P = 0.021). Pin tract infection was the most common complication, as reported in six studies.
CONCLUSION
The findings of the present meta-analysis indicate that the Ilizarov technique is a successful treatment option for bone defects in the radius and ulna. This method has demonstrated efficacy in achieving expected clinical outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Radius; Ilizarov Technique; Upper Extremity; Databases, Factual; Ulna
PubMed: 37649069
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04126-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Fractures of the distal femur (the part of the thigh bone nearest the knee) are a considerable cause of morbidity. Various different surgical and non-surgical treatments... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fractures of the distal femur (the part of the thigh bone nearest the knee) are a considerable cause of morbidity. Various different surgical and non-surgical treatments have been used in the management of these injuries but the best treatment remains controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (9 September 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1946 to August week 4 2014); EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 36); World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (January 2015); conference proceedings and reference lists without language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing interventions for treating fractures of the distal femur in adults. Our primary outcomes were patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of knee function and adverse events, including re-operations.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We assessed treatment effects using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) and, where appropriate, we pooled data using a fixed-effect model.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies that involved a total of 444 adults with distal femur fractures. Each of the included studies was small and assessed to be at substantial risk of bias, with four studies being quasi-randomised and none of the studies using blinding in outcome assessment. All studies provided an incomplete picture of outcome. Based on GRADE criteria, we assessed the quality of the evidence as very low for all reported outcomes, which means we are very uncertain of the reliability of these results.One study compared surgical (dynamic condylar screw (DCS) fixation) and non-surgical (skeletal traction) treatment in 42 older adults (mean age 79 years) with displaced fractures of the distal femur. This study, which did not report on PROMs, provided very low quality evidence of little between-group differences in adverse events such as death (2/20 surgical versus 1/20 non-surgical), re-operation or repeat procedures (1/20 versus 3/20) and other adverse effects including delayed union. However, while none of the findings were statistically significant, there were more complications such as pressure sores (0/20 versus 4/20) associated with prolonged immobilisation in the non-surgical group, who stayed on average one month longer in hospital.The other six studies compared different surgical interventions. Three studies, including 159 participants, compared retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN) fixation versus DCS or blade-plate fixation (fixed-angle devices). None of these studies reported PROMS relating to function. None of the results for the reported adverse events showed a difference between the two implants. Thus, although there was very low quality evidence of a higher risk of re-operation in the RIMN group, the 95% confidence interval (CI) also included the possibility of a higher risk of re-operation for the fixed-angle device (9/83 RIMN versus 4/96 fixed-angle device; 3 studies: RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 5.57). There was no clinically important difference between the two groups found in quality of life assessed using the 36-item Short Form in one study (23 fractures).One study (18 participants) provided very low quality evidence of there being little difference in adverse events between RIMN and non-locking plate fixation. One study (53 participants) provided very low quality evidence of a higher risk of re-operation after locking plate fixation compared with a single fixed-angle device (6/28 locking plate versus 1/25 fixed-angle device; RR 5.36, 95% CI 0.69 to 41.50); however, the 95% CI also included the possibility of a higher risk of re-operation for the fixed-angle device. Neither of these trials reported on PROMs.The largest included study, which reported outcomes in 126 participants at one-year follow-up, compared RIMN versus locking plate fixation; both implants are commonly used in current practice. None of the between-group differences in the reported outcomes were statistically significant; thus the CIs crossed the line of no effect. There was very low quality evidence of better patient-reported musculoskeletal function in the RIMN group based on Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (0 to 100: best function) scores (e.g. dysfunction index: MD -5.90 favouring RIMN, 95% CI -15.13 to 3.33) as well as quality of life using the EuroQoL-5D Index (0 to 1: best quality of life) (MD 0.10 favouring RIMN, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.21). The CIs for both results included a clinically important effect favouring RIMN but also a clinically insignificant effect in favour of locking plate fixation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review highlights the major limitations of the available evidence concerning current treatment interventions for fractures of the distal femur. The currently available evidence is incomplete and insufficient to inform current clinical practice. Priority should be given to a definitive, pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial comparing contemporary treatments such as locked plates and intramedullary nails. At minimum, these should report validated patient-reported functional and quality-of-life outcomes at one and two years. All trials should be reported in full using the CONSORT guidelines.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Femoral Fractures; Fracture Fixation; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Traction
PubMed: 26270891
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010606.pub2 -
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery May 2018There is a general consensus on the management of femoral fractures in children younger than two years and adolescents older than sixteen years. The best treatment for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is a general consensus on the management of femoral fractures in children younger than two years and adolescents older than sixteen years. The best treatment for patients younger than sixteen years of age is still debatable. Titanium Elastic Nails (TEN), is widely used with some evidence, nonetheless, we undertook a systematic meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of TEN compared to Spica cast for the management of femoral shaft fracture in children aged between 2 to 16 years old.
METHODS
A computer literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central was conducted using relevant keywords. We included clinical trials and observational studies that compared TEN versus Spica cast; Records were screened for eligible studies and data were extracted and synthesized using Review Manager version 5.3 for Windows. Our search found 573 unique articles. After screening the abstract and relevant full text, 12 studies with a total of 1012 patients were suitable for the final analysis.
RESULTS
In terms terms of union (in weeks), the reported effect sizes favoured the TEN group in two included studies only. Moreover, the overall standardized mean difference in sagittal (SMD -0.48, 95% CI [-0.70 to -0.26], ) and coronal angulations (SMD -0.66, 95% CI [-1.00 to -0.31], ) favored TEN fixation in management of femoral fractures younger than 16 years. The reported length of hospital stay was not consistent across studies. The overall risk ratio of malalignment (RR=0.39, 95% CI [0.27 to 0.57], ) favored the TEN as well as walking independently. Based on our analysis, TEN treatment is superior to traction and hip spica for femoral fractures in patients younger than 16 years old.
CONCLUSION
Based on our analysis we recommend the use of TEN fixation in management of pediatric femoral fractures in patients younger than 16 years.
PubMed: 29911134
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a challenge and burden to individuals and healthcare systems. The number of hip fractures globally is rising. The majority of extracapsular hip fractures are treated surgically.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the relative effects (benefits and harms) of all surgical treatments used in the management of extracapsular hip fractures in older adults, using a network meta-analysis of randomised trials, and to generate a hierarchy of interventions according to their outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and five other databases in July 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing different treatments for fragility extracapsular hip fractures in older adults. We included internal and external fixation, arthroplasties and non-operative treatment. We excluded studies of hip fractures with specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or resulting from high-energy trauma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author completed data extraction which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for three outcomes at different time points: mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - both reported within 4 months, at 12 months and after 24 months of surgery, and unplanned return to theatre (at end of study follow-up). We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) with Stata software, using frequentist methods, and calculated the differences between treatments using risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also performed direct comparisons using the same codes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 184 studies (160 RCTs and 24 quasi-RCTs) with 26,073 participants with 26,086 extracapsular hip fractures in the review. The mean age in most studies ranged from 60 to 93 years, and 69% were women. After discussion with clinical experts, we selected nine nodes that represented the best balance between clinical plausibility and efficiency of the networks: fixed angle plate (dynamic and static), cephalomedullary nail (short and long), condylocephalic nail, external fixation, hemiarthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty (THA) and non-operative treatment. Seventy-three studies (with 11,126 participants) with data for at least two of these treatments contributed to the NMA. We selected the dynamic fixed angle plate as a reference treatment against which other treatments were compared. This was a common treatment in the networks, providing a clinically appropriate comparison. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for serious and very serious risks of bias, and because some of the estimates included the possibility of transitivity owing to the proportion of stable and unstable fractures between treatment comparisons. We also downgraded if we noted evidence of inconsistency in direct or indirect estimates from which the network estimate was derived. Most estimates included the possibility of benefits and harms, and we downgraded the evidence for these treatments for imprecision. Overall, 20.2% of participants who received the reference treatment had died by 12 months after surgery. We noted no evidence of any differences in mortality at this time point between the treatments compared. Effect estimates of all treatments included plausible benefits as well as harms. Short cephalomedullary nails had the narrowest confidence interval (CI), with 7 fewer deaths (26 fewer to 15 more) per 1000 participants, compared to the reference treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07). THA had the widest CI, with 62 fewer deaths (177 fewer to 610 more) per 1000 participants, compared to the reference treatment (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.03). The certainty of the evidence for all treatments was low to very low. Although we ranked the treatments, this ranking should be interpreted cautiously because of the imprecision in all the network estimates for these treatments. Overall, 4.3% of participants who received the reference treatment had unplanned return to theatre. Compared to this treatment, we found very low-certainty evidence that 58 more participants (14 to 137 more) per 1000 participants returned to theatre if they were treated with a static fixed angle plate (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.50), and 91 more participants (37 to 182 more) per 1000 participants returned to theatre if treated with a condylocephalic nail (RR 3.33, 95% CI 1.95 to 5.68). We also found that these treatments were ranked as having the highest probability of unplanned return to theatre. In the remaining treatments, we noted no evidence of any differences in unplanned return to theatre, with effect estimates including benefits as well as harms. The certainty of the evidence for these other treatments ranged from low to very low. We did not use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for early mortality, but our findings were similar to those for 12-month mortality, with no evidence of any differences in treatments when compared to dynamic fixed angle plate. Very few studies reported HRQoL and we were unable to build networks from these studies and perform network meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Across the networks, we found that there was considerable variability in the ranking of each treatment such that there was no one outstanding, or subset of outstanding, superior treatments. However, static implants such as condylocephalic nails and static fixed angle plates did yield a higher risk of unplanned return to theatre. We had insufficient evidence to determine the effects of any treatments on HRQoL, and this review includes data for only two outcomes. More detailed pairwise comparisons of some of the included treatments are reported in other Cochrane Reviews in this series. Short cephalomedullary nails versus dynamic fixed angle plates contributed the most evidence to each network, and our findings indicate that there may be no difference between these treatments. These data included people with both stable and unstable extracapsular fractures. At this time, there are too few studies to draw any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of arthroplasty or external fixation for extracapsular fracture in older adults. Future research could focus on the benefits and harms of arthroplasty interventions compared with internal fixation using a dynamic implant.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bone Plates; Female; Fracture Fixation; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Hip Fractures; Humans; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 35142366
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013405.pub2