提前还是推迟?最适合“无人区”损伤的康复方案:荟萃分析与试验序列分析- 20年趋势

IF 0.4 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS
Celleen Rei Setiawan, Made Bramantya Karna, Andrew Sutheno, Febyan Febyan, Dary Gunawan
{"title":"提前还是推迟?最适合“无人区”损伤的康复方案:荟萃分析与试验序列分析- 20年趋势","authors":"Celleen Rei Setiawan, Made Bramantya Karna, Andrew Sutheno, Febyan Febyan, Dary Gunawan","doi":"10.1177/22104917221147686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze various rehabilitation protocol and determine which methods will yield a better outcome. Methods: The database reports were searched within 1990 until 2020, using PubMed, Cochrane library database, Ovid, Medline, and the other several published trials. A statistical analysis was made from Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Result: The mean of rerupture rate is 3.3% (n = 8) in the combination protocol and 8% (n = 48) in controlled active motion (CAM) protocol. Meta-analysis found no significant difference between Kleinert versus CAM in rerupture rate. Furhtermore, we found no significant difference in Duran versus CAM in rerupture rate. In TSA, the Z-curve does not cross both of the trial sequential boundaries, a further trial with larger sample will be required. The TSA of flexion contracture CAM versus Kleinert was indicated that CAM protocol may be superior than Kleinert to reduce the incidence of flexion contracture with the range of mean flexion contracture 6.6% (n = 18) in CAM to 23.6% (n = 76) in Kleinert protocol. Conclusion: Current meta-analysis proposed that the combination technique will result less rerupture incidence and better functional outcome in flexor zone II injuries than other techniques. The CAM method also results in less flexion contracture than others. However, a further meta-analysis with larger sample trials seems to be required to confirm this review's conclusion.","PeriodicalId":42408,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedics Trauma and Rehabilitation","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early or delay? The most suitable rehabilitation protocol for “no man's land” injury: Meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis—20 years trends\",\"authors\":\"Celleen Rei Setiawan, Made Bramantya Karna, Andrew Sutheno, Febyan Febyan, Dary Gunawan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/22104917221147686\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze various rehabilitation protocol and determine which methods will yield a better outcome. Methods: The database reports were searched within 1990 until 2020, using PubMed, Cochrane library database, Ovid, Medline, and the other several published trials. A statistical analysis was made from Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Result: The mean of rerupture rate is 3.3% (n = 8) in the combination protocol and 8% (n = 48) in controlled active motion (CAM) protocol. Meta-analysis found no significant difference between Kleinert versus CAM in rerupture rate. Furhtermore, we found no significant difference in Duran versus CAM in rerupture rate. In TSA, the Z-curve does not cross both of the trial sequential boundaries, a further trial with larger sample will be required. The TSA of flexion contracture CAM versus Kleinert was indicated that CAM protocol may be superior than Kleinert to reduce the incidence of flexion contracture with the range of mean flexion contracture 6.6% (n = 18) in CAM to 23.6% (n = 76) in Kleinert protocol. Conclusion: Current meta-analysis proposed that the combination technique will result less rerupture incidence and better functional outcome in flexor zone II injuries than other techniques. The CAM method also results in less flexion contracture than others. However, a further meta-analysis with larger sample trials seems to be required to confirm this review's conclusion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedics Trauma and Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedics Trauma and Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/22104917221147686\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedics Trauma and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22104917221147686","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是分析各种康复方案,确定哪种方法会产生更好的结果。方法:检索1990年至2020年间的数据库报告,使用PubMed、Cochrane图书馆数据库、Ovid、Medline和其他几项已发表的试验。由评审管理和试验序列分析(TSA)进行统计分析。结果:联合治疗组的平均再破裂率为3.3% (n = 8),可控主动运动治疗组的平均再破裂率为8% (n = 48)。meta分析发现Kleinert与CAM在再破裂率上无显著差异。此外,我们发现Duran和CAM在再破裂率上没有显著差异。在TSA中,z曲线没有跨越两个试验序列边界,则需要使用更大的样本进行进一步的试验。屈曲挛缩CAM与Kleinert的TSA对比表明,CAM方案在降低屈曲挛缩发生率方面可能优于Kleinert方案,CAM方案的平均屈曲挛缩率为6.6% (n = 18), Kleinert方案的平均屈曲挛缩率为23.6% (n = 76)。结论:目前的荟萃分析表明,与其他技术相比,联合技术可减少屈肌II区损伤的再破裂发生率和更好的功能预后。CAM方法也导致屈曲挛缩比其他方法少。然而,似乎需要更大样本试验的进一步荟萃分析来证实这一综述的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Early or delay? The most suitable rehabilitation protocol for “no man's land” injury: Meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis—20 years trends
Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze various rehabilitation protocol and determine which methods will yield a better outcome. Methods: The database reports were searched within 1990 until 2020, using PubMed, Cochrane library database, Ovid, Medline, and the other several published trials. A statistical analysis was made from Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Result: The mean of rerupture rate is 3.3% (n = 8) in the combination protocol and 8% (n = 48) in controlled active motion (CAM) protocol. Meta-analysis found no significant difference between Kleinert versus CAM in rerupture rate. Furhtermore, we found no significant difference in Duran versus CAM in rerupture rate. In TSA, the Z-curve does not cross both of the trial sequential boundaries, a further trial with larger sample will be required. The TSA of flexion contracture CAM versus Kleinert was indicated that CAM protocol may be superior than Kleinert to reduce the incidence of flexion contracture with the range of mean flexion contracture 6.6% (n = 18) in CAM to 23.6% (n = 76) in Kleinert protocol. Conclusion: Current meta-analysis proposed that the combination technique will result less rerupture incidence and better functional outcome in flexor zone II injuries than other techniques. The CAM method also results in less flexion contracture than others. However, a further meta-analysis with larger sample trials seems to be required to confirm this review's conclusion.
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
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
8 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