A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Treatments for Displaced Radial Head Fractures.

IF 0.5 Q4 SURGERY
Samuel Haines, Amir Abdelmalek, Harold Akehurst, Rouin Amirfeyz
{"title":"A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Treatments for Displaced Radial Head Fractures.","authors":"Samuel Haines, Amir Abdelmalek, Harold Akehurst, Rouin Amirfeyz","doi":"10.1142/S2424835524500358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The aim of this study is to compare the surgical and non-operative management of displaced radial head fractures via a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). <b>Methods:</b> RCTs comparing management of isolated, displaced radial head fractures in adults were included in our review and statistical analysis. A systematic review of electronic databases (Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library) were screened for comparative RCTs reporting on the management of displaced radial head fractures in August 2021. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for eligibility and an assessment of bias was performed for each study. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of the included RCTs was performed. <b>Results:</b> Five RCTs (326 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. Treatment methods included radial head arthroplasty (RHA), open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) with metal implants (ORIF-M), ORIF with biodegradable implants (ORIF-B) and non-operative management. In our network meta-analysis of 'good' or 'excellent' patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), RHA was significantly favourable to ORIF-M (OR: 0.04, CrI: 0.0011, 0.87), ORIF-B (OR: 0.1 CrI: 0.00076, 6.37). Nonoperative treatment was not shown to be significantly worse than RHA (OR: 0.01 CrI: 2.5e-0.5, 3.61). <b>Conclusions:</b> This network meta-analysis shows that in displaced radial head fractures, RHA is associated with significantly superior functional PROMs than ORIF-M based on the evidence available. Nonoperative management has not been shown to be significantly worse. <b>Level of Evidence:</b> Level III (Therapeutic).</p>","PeriodicalId":51689,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Surgery-Asian-Pacific Volume","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Surgery-Asian-Pacific Volume","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424835524500358","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to compare the surgical and non-operative management of displaced radial head fractures via a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: RCTs comparing management of isolated, displaced radial head fractures in adults were included in our review and statistical analysis. A systematic review of electronic databases (Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library) were screened for comparative RCTs reporting on the management of displaced radial head fractures in August 2021. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for eligibility and an assessment of bias was performed for each study. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of the included RCTs was performed. Results: Five RCTs (326 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. Treatment methods included radial head arthroplasty (RHA), open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) with metal implants (ORIF-M), ORIF with biodegradable implants (ORIF-B) and non-operative management. In our network meta-analysis of 'good' or 'excellent' patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), RHA was significantly favourable to ORIF-M (OR: 0.04, CrI: 0.0011, 0.87), ORIF-B (OR: 0.1 CrI: 0.00076, 6.37). Nonoperative treatment was not shown to be significantly worse than RHA (OR: 0.01 CrI: 2.5e-0.5, 3.61). Conclusions: This network meta-analysis shows that in displaced radial head fractures, RHA is associated with significantly superior functional PROMs than ORIF-M based on the evidence available. Nonoperative management has not been shown to be significantly worse. Level of Evidence: Level III (Therapeutic).

比较桡骨头移位骨折治疗方法的随机对照试验的系统回顾和网络元分析。
研究背景本研究旨在通过对随机对照试验(RCT)进行网络荟萃分析,比较移位性桡骨头骨折的手术和非手术疗法。方法:我们将比较成人孤立性移位桡骨头骨折治疗方法的随机对照试验纳入审查和统计分析。我们对电子数据库(Medline、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆)进行了系统性审查,筛选出 2021 年 8 月报告的桡骨头移位骨折治疗方法的对比性 RCT。两名研究人员独立审查了研究的资格,并对每项研究进行了偏倚评估。对纳入的 RCT 进行了贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。结果我们的荟萃分析共纳入了五项研究(326 名患者)。治疗方法包括桡骨头关节置换术(RHA)、带金属植入物的开放复位内固定术(ORIF)(ORIF-M)、带可降解植入物的开放复位内固定术(ORIF-B)和非手术治疗。在我们对 "良好 "或 "优秀 "患者报告结果指标(PROMs)进行的网络荟萃分析中,RHA明显优于ORIF-M(OR:0.04,CrI:0.0011,0.87)和ORIF-B(OR:0.1,CrI:0.00076,6.37)。非手术治疗的效果并未明显差于 RHA(OR:0.01 CrI:2.5e-0.5,3.61)。结论:这项网络荟萃分析表明,根据现有证据,对于移位性桡骨头骨折,RHA 的功能性 PROMs 明显优于 ORIF-M。非手术治疗的效果并未明显降低。证据等级:三级(治疗)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
304
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信