超声引导下操作不能防止桡骨远端骨折(Colles)中基于标志性骨折复位的错位。

IF 1.2 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock Pub Date : 2023-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-25 DOI:10.4103/jets.jets_157_22
Sandeep Kumar Nema, Jose Austine, Premkumar Ramasubramani, Ruchin Agrawal
{"title":"超声引导下操作不能防止桡骨远端骨折(Colles)中基于标志性骨折复位的错位。","authors":"Sandeep Kumar Nema,&nbsp;Jose Austine,&nbsp;Premkumar Ramasubramani,&nbsp;Ruchin Agrawal","doi":"10.4103/jets.jets_157_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This systematic review aims to determine the relative risk of distal radius (Colles) fracture (DRF) malalignment between ultrasound (USG)-guided and conventional/landmark guided/blind manipulation and reduction (M&R).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched 3932 records from major electronic bibliographic databases on USG-guided manipulation of DRF. Studies with randomized, quasi-randomized, and cross-sectional study designs meeting the inclusion criteria were included in this review. USG and landmark-guided DRF manipulations were named cases and controls, respectively. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen and nine studies were analysed for qualitative and quantitative analysis in this review. Nine hundred fifty-one DRF patients (475 cases and 476 controls) from 9 studies with mean ages of 51.52 ± 11.86 (22-92) and 55.82 ± 11.28 (18-98) years for cases and controls were pooled for this review. The pooled relative risk estimate from the studies included in the meta-analysis was 0.90 (0.74-1.09). There was a 10% decrease in the risk of malalignment with USG than the landmark guided M&R of DRF. The <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> statistic estimated a heterogeneity of 83%. Sensitivity analysis revealed a relative risk of 1.00 (0.96-1.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The USG-guided manipulation does not prevent malalignment over the landmark-based manipulation of DRF. The risk of bias across the included studies and heterogeneity of 83% mandates further unbiased, high-quality studies to verify the findings of this review.</p>","PeriodicalId":15692,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10424739/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasound-Guided Manipulation does not Prevent Malalignment Over Landmark-Based Fracture Reduction in Distal Radius Fracture (Colles).\",\"authors\":\"Sandeep Kumar Nema,&nbsp;Jose Austine,&nbsp;Premkumar Ramasubramani,&nbsp;Ruchin Agrawal\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jets.jets_157_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This systematic review aims to determine the relative risk of distal radius (Colles) fracture (DRF) malalignment between ultrasound (USG)-guided and conventional/landmark guided/blind manipulation and reduction (M&R).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched 3932 records from major electronic bibliographic databases on USG-guided manipulation of DRF. Studies with randomized, quasi-randomized, and cross-sectional study designs meeting the inclusion criteria were included in this review. USG and landmark-guided DRF manipulations were named cases and controls, respectively. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen and nine studies were analysed for qualitative and quantitative analysis in this review. Nine hundred fifty-one DRF patients (475 cases and 476 controls) from 9 studies with mean ages of 51.52 ± 11.86 (22-92) and 55.82 ± 11.28 (18-98) years for cases and controls were pooled for this review. The pooled relative risk estimate from the studies included in the meta-analysis was 0.90 (0.74-1.09). There was a 10% decrease in the risk of malalignment with USG than the landmark guided M&R of DRF. The <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> statistic estimated a heterogeneity of 83%. Sensitivity analysis revealed a relative risk of 1.00 (0.96-1.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The USG-guided manipulation does not prevent malalignment over the landmark-based manipulation of DRF. The risk of bias across the included studies and heterogeneity of 83% mandates further unbiased, high-quality studies to verify the findings of this review.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15692,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10424739/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jets.jets_157_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jets.jets_157_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

引言:本系统综述旨在确定超声(USG)引导和传统/标志引导/盲操作复位(M&R)之间桡骨远端(Colles)骨折(DRF)不对齐的相对风险。方法:我们从主要电子文献数据库中检索了3932份USG引导的DRF操作记录。符合纳入标准的随机、准随机和横断面研究设计纳入本综述。USG和界标引导DRF操作分别命名为病例和对照组。纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表用于评估纳入研究的质量。结果:本综述对13项和9项研究进行了定性和定量分析。来自9项研究的951名DRF患者(475例病例和476名对照组),病例和对照组的平均年龄分别为51.52±11.86(22-92)和55.82±11.28(18-98)岁。荟萃分析中纳入的研究的合并相对风险估计值为0.90(0.74-1.09)。与里程碑式指导的DRF M&R相比,与USG不一致的风险降低了10%。I2统计估计异质性为83%。敏感性分析显示相对风险为1.00(0.96-1.05)。纳入研究的偏倚风险和83%的异质性要求进一步进行无偏倚、高质量的研究,以验证本综述的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Ultrasound-Guided Manipulation does not Prevent Malalignment Over Landmark-Based Fracture Reduction in Distal Radius Fracture (Colles).

Ultrasound-Guided Manipulation does not Prevent Malalignment Over Landmark-Based Fracture Reduction in Distal Radius Fracture (Colles).

Ultrasound-Guided Manipulation does not Prevent Malalignment Over Landmark-Based Fracture Reduction in Distal Radius Fracture (Colles).

Ultrasound-Guided Manipulation does not Prevent Malalignment Over Landmark-Based Fracture Reduction in Distal Radius Fracture (Colles).

Introduction: This systematic review aims to determine the relative risk of distal radius (Colles) fracture (DRF) malalignment between ultrasound (USG)-guided and conventional/landmark guided/blind manipulation and reduction (M&R).

Methods: We searched 3932 records from major electronic bibliographic databases on USG-guided manipulation of DRF. Studies with randomized, quasi-randomized, and cross-sectional study designs meeting the inclusion criteria were included in this review. USG and landmark-guided DRF manipulations were named cases and controls, respectively. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies.

Results: Thirteen and nine studies were analysed for qualitative and quantitative analysis in this review. Nine hundred fifty-one DRF patients (475 cases and 476 controls) from 9 studies with mean ages of 51.52 ± 11.86 (22-92) and 55.82 ± 11.28 (18-98) years for cases and controls were pooled for this review. The pooled relative risk estimate from the studies included in the meta-analysis was 0.90 (0.74-1.09). There was a 10% decrease in the risk of malalignment with USG than the landmark guided M&R of DRF. The I2 statistic estimated a heterogeneity of 83%. Sensitivity analysis revealed a relative risk of 1.00 (0.96-1.05).

Conclusion: The USG-guided manipulation does not prevent malalignment over the landmark-based manipulation of DRF. The risk of bias across the included studies and heterogeneity of 83% mandates further unbiased, high-quality studies to verify the findings of this review.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
52
审稿时长
39 weeks
×
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