金属张力带钢丝与张力带缝合线固定鹰嘴骨折:系统回顾

Shaunak R, D. a., Sinha V, R. S, Clay R, Ramji S, Shaunak S
{"title":"金属张力带钢丝与张力带缝合线固定鹰嘴骨折:系统回顾","authors":"Shaunak R, D. a., Sinha V, R. S, Clay R, Ramji S, Shaunak S","doi":"10.26420/austinjorthopaderheumatol.2022.1110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Tension-Band Wiring (TBW) is the treatment of choice for displaced, non-comminuted olecranon fractures. Due to the high complication rate involved with TBW, particularly the need for re-operative hardware removal, an alternate method using a high-strength, non-metallic Tension-Band Suture (TBS) construct has been precipitated. There is currently no literature comparing and evaluating these 2 particular techniques, therefore, this systematic review aims to address this. Methods: 6 databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, The CRD and Clinicaltrials.gov). Titles, abstracts and full articles were then systematically screened against the eligibility criteria. The primary outcomes studied were reported postoperative functional outcomes, and complication rates. Results: From 2538 identified abstracts, 5 studies met our eligibility criteria. Only one study compared TBW with TBS and concluded that in paediatric patients, there is a lack of benefit from TBS due to a similar rate of reoperation for hardware removal. 4 studies solely analysed TBW. In TBW, the rate of reoperation reached as high as 76.5% with the need for hardware removal being the most common indication. Conclusion: This review was required to highlight the alarming paucity of studies analysing TBS fixation in the treatment of non-comminuted olecranon fractures. Based on the included studies, it is difficult to conclude an advantage for either TBW or TBS due to the lack of standardised measuring of functional outcomes and comparative studies. There is potential for a reduced rate of reoperation in TBS, however, there is a great need for more robust studies analysing this technique.","PeriodicalId":399704,"journal":{"name":"Austin Journal of Orthopedics & Rheumatology","volume":"111 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metal Tension-Band Wires vs Tension-Band Sutures in the Fixation of Olecranon Fractures: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Shaunak R, D. a., Sinha V, R. S, Clay R, Ramji S, Shaunak S\",\"doi\":\"10.26420/austinjorthopaderheumatol.2022.1110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Tension-Band Wiring (TBW) is the treatment of choice for displaced, non-comminuted olecranon fractures. Due to the high complication rate involved with TBW, particularly the need for re-operative hardware removal, an alternate method using a high-strength, non-metallic Tension-Band Suture (TBS) construct has been precipitated. There is currently no literature comparing and evaluating these 2 particular techniques, therefore, this systematic review aims to address this. Methods: 6 databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, The CRD and Clinicaltrials.gov). Titles, abstracts and full articles were then systematically screened against the eligibility criteria. The primary outcomes studied were reported postoperative functional outcomes, and complication rates. Results: From 2538 identified abstracts, 5 studies met our eligibility criteria. Only one study compared TBW with TBS and concluded that in paediatric patients, there is a lack of benefit from TBS due to a similar rate of reoperation for hardware removal. 4 studies solely analysed TBW. In TBW, the rate of reoperation reached as high as 76.5% with the need for hardware removal being the most common indication. Conclusion: This review was required to highlight the alarming paucity of studies analysing TBS fixation in the treatment of non-comminuted olecranon fractures. Based on the included studies, it is difficult to conclude an advantage for either TBW or TBS due to the lack of standardised measuring of functional outcomes and comparative studies. There is potential for a reduced rate of reoperation in TBS, however, there is a great need for more robust studies analysing this technique.\",\"PeriodicalId\":399704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Austin Journal of Orthopedics & Rheumatology\",\"volume\":\"111 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Austin Journal of Orthopedics & Rheumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26420/austinjorthopaderheumatol.2022.1110\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Austin Journal of Orthopedics & Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26420/austinjorthopaderheumatol.2022.1110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:张力带钢丝(TBW)是移位、非粉碎性鹰嘴骨折的首选治疗方法。由于TBW的高并发症发生率,特别是需要再次手术移除硬体,一种使用高强度非金属张力带缝合(TBS)结构的替代方法已经出现。目前还没有文献比较和评价这两种特殊的技术,因此,本系统综述旨在解决这一问题。方法:检索MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、The CRD和Clinicaltrials.gov等6个数据库。然后根据资格标准对标题、摘要和全文进行系统筛选。研究的主要结果是报告的术后功能结果和并发症发生率。结果:在2538篇确定的摘要中,有5篇研究符合我们的入选标准。只有一项研究比较了TBW和TBS,并得出结论:在儿科患者中,TBS缺乏益处,因为硬体移除的再手术率相似。4项研究单独分析了TBW。在TBW中,再手术率高达76.5%,需要移除硬体是最常见的指征。结论:这篇综述需要强调分析TBS固定治疗非粉碎性鹰嘴骨折的研究的惊人缺乏。根据纳入的研究,由于缺乏功能结果的标准化测量和比较研究,很难得出TBW或TBS的优势。TBS有降低再手术率的潜力,然而,对该技术进行更有力的研究是非常必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Metal Tension-Band Wires vs Tension-Band Sutures in the Fixation of Olecranon Fractures: A Systematic Review
Background: Tension-Band Wiring (TBW) is the treatment of choice for displaced, non-comminuted olecranon fractures. Due to the high complication rate involved with TBW, particularly the need for re-operative hardware removal, an alternate method using a high-strength, non-metallic Tension-Band Suture (TBS) construct has been precipitated. There is currently no literature comparing and evaluating these 2 particular techniques, therefore, this systematic review aims to address this. Methods: 6 databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, The CRD and Clinicaltrials.gov). Titles, abstracts and full articles were then systematically screened against the eligibility criteria. The primary outcomes studied were reported postoperative functional outcomes, and complication rates. Results: From 2538 identified abstracts, 5 studies met our eligibility criteria. Only one study compared TBW with TBS and concluded that in paediatric patients, there is a lack of benefit from TBS due to a similar rate of reoperation for hardware removal. 4 studies solely analysed TBW. In TBW, the rate of reoperation reached as high as 76.5% with the need for hardware removal being the most common indication. Conclusion: This review was required to highlight the alarming paucity of studies analysing TBS fixation in the treatment of non-comminuted olecranon fractures. Based on the included studies, it is difficult to conclude an advantage for either TBW or TBS due to the lack of standardised measuring of functional outcomes and comparative studies. There is potential for a reduced rate of reoperation in TBS, however, there is a great need for more robust studies analysing this technique.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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