Comparative analysis of dynamic external fixation, static external fixation, and internal fixation in interphalangeal joint fractures: outcomes, complications, and clinical implications.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Chengjing Wang, Changqing Li
{"title":"Comparative analysis of dynamic external fixation, static external fixation, and internal fixation in interphalangeal joint fractures: outcomes, complications, and clinical implications.","authors":"Chengjing Wang, Changqing Li","doi":"10.1186/s13018-025-05644-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) fractures present significant therapeutic challenges in hand surgery. This systematic review evaluated the comparative efficacy of dynamic external fixation against traditional treatment modalities, integrating machine learning analysis to enhance outcome prediction and treatment selection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically reviewed 43 clinical studies published between January 2014 and January 2024, including 26 dynamic external fixations, 6 traditional internal fixations, and 11 static external fixations. Studies were included if they reported quantitative outcomes of PIPJ fracture treatment, had a minimum follow-up of 4 weeks, and included at least 20 patients. Case series with fewer than 5 patients and non-English publications without available translations were excluded. The analysis focused on four key outcomes: range of motion (ROM), recovery time, complication rates, and functional results. We developed a neural network model to predict treatment outcomes, achieving 89.7% accuracy (95% CI 87.3-92.1%). Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Dynamic external fixation demonstrated superior outcomes across multiple domains. ROM analysis revealed a median of 86.12° (range: 70°-95°) for dynamic fixation compared to 72.30° (range: 56°-88°) for traditional approaches (mean difference: 13.82°, 95% CI 10.24-17.40°). Dynamic fixation significantly reduced recovery duration (9.68 weeks vs. 20.47 weeks, p < 0.001). Complication profiles favored dynamic fixation, with pin tract infection rates of 2.4% versus 3.8% for traditional fixation. Functional assessment using the Ishida scoring system showed favorable outcomes in the dynamic fixation group, with a mean score of 85.3 points and 78% of cases achieving scores above 80 points.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This comprehensive systematic review provides evidence supporting the efficacy of dynamic external fixation for PIPJ fracture treatment. The findings demonstrate improved functional outcomes, accelerated rehabilitation, and reduced complication rates. The integration of machine learning analysis shows promise for optimizing patient-specific treatment selection. Further validation through large-scale, multicenter randomized controlled trials with extended follow-up periods is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":16629,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","volume":"20 1","pages":"265"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11899099/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-025-05644-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: Proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) fractures present significant therapeutic challenges in hand surgery. This systematic review evaluated the comparative efficacy of dynamic external fixation against traditional treatment modalities, integrating machine learning analysis to enhance outcome prediction and treatment selection.

Methods: We systematically reviewed 43 clinical studies published between January 2014 and January 2024, including 26 dynamic external fixations, 6 traditional internal fixations, and 11 static external fixations. Studies were included if they reported quantitative outcomes of PIPJ fracture treatment, had a minimum follow-up of 4 weeks, and included at least 20 patients. Case series with fewer than 5 patients and non-English publications without available translations were excluded. The analysis focused on four key outcomes: range of motion (ROM), recovery time, complication rates, and functional results. We developed a neural network model to predict treatment outcomes, achieving 89.7% accuracy (95% CI 87.3-92.1%). Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

Results: Dynamic external fixation demonstrated superior outcomes across multiple domains. ROM analysis revealed a median of 86.12° (range: 70°-95°) for dynamic fixation compared to 72.30° (range: 56°-88°) for traditional approaches (mean difference: 13.82°, 95% CI 10.24-17.40°). Dynamic fixation significantly reduced recovery duration (9.68 weeks vs. 20.47 weeks, p < 0.001). Complication profiles favored dynamic fixation, with pin tract infection rates of 2.4% versus 3.8% for traditional fixation. Functional assessment using the Ishida scoring system showed favorable outcomes in the dynamic fixation group, with a mean score of 85.3 points and 78% of cases achieving scores above 80 points.

Discussion: This comprehensive systematic review provides evidence supporting the efficacy of dynamic external fixation for PIPJ fracture treatment. The findings demonstrate improved functional outcomes, accelerated rehabilitation, and reduced complication rates. The integration of machine learning analysis shows promise for optimizing patient-specific treatment selection. Further validation through large-scale, multicenter randomized controlled trials with extended follow-up periods is warranted.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
494
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of clinical and basic research studies related to musculoskeletal issues. Orthopaedic research is conducted at clinical and basic science levels. With the advancement of new technologies and the increasing expectation and demand from doctors and patients, we are witnessing an enormous growth in clinical orthopaedic research, particularly in the fields of traumatology, spinal surgery, joint replacement, sports medicine, musculoskeletal tumour management, hand microsurgery, foot and ankle surgery, paediatric orthopaedic, and orthopaedic rehabilitation. The involvement of basic science ranges from molecular, cellular, structural and functional perspectives to tissue engineering, gait analysis, automation and robotic surgery. Implant and biomaterial designs are new disciplines that complement clinical applications. JOSR encourages the publication of multidisciplinary research with collaboration amongst clinicians and scientists from different disciplines, which will be the trend in the coming decades.
×
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