股骨近端钉与动态髁螺钉治疗不稳定型转子间骨折的疗效比较。

IF 2 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Ahmed Mohamed Yousif Mohamed, Monzir Salih, Mohanad Abdulgadir, Ayman E Abbas, Duha Lutfi Turjuman
{"title":"股骨近端钉与动态髁螺钉治疗不稳定型转子间骨折的疗效比较。","authors":"Ahmed Mohamed Yousif Mohamed, Monzir Salih, Mohanad Abdulgadir, Ayman E Abbas, Duha Lutfi Turjuman","doi":"10.5312/wjo.v15.i8.796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Among the most frequent hip fractures are trochanteric fractures, which usually occur from low-energy trauma like minor falls, especially in older people with osteoporotic bones.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the treatment efficacy of dynamic condylar screws (DCS) and proximal femoral nails (PFN) for unstable intertrochanteric fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To find pertinent randomized controlled trials and retrospective observational studies comparing PFN with DCS for the management of unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures, a thorough search was carried out. For research studies published between January 1996 and April 2024, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were all searched. The complete texts of the papers were retrieved, vetted, and independently examined by two investigators. Disputes were settled by consensus, and any disagreements that persisted were arbitrated by a third author.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included six articles, comprising a total of 173 patients. Compared to the DCS, the PFN had a shorter operation time [mean difference (MD): -41.7 min, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -63.04 to -20.35, <i>P</i> = 0.0001], higher success rates with closed reduction techniques [risk ratio (RR): 34.05, 95%CI: 11.12-104.31, <i>P</i> < 0.00001], and required less intraoperative blood transfusion (MD: -1.4 units, 95%CI: -1.80 to -1.00, <i>P</i> < 0.00001). Additionally, the PFN showed shorter fracture union time (MD: -6.92 wk, 95%CI: -10.27 to -3.57, <i>P</i> < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of reoperation (RR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.17-0.82, <i>P</i> = 0.01). However, there was no discernible variation regarding hospital stay, implant-related complications, and infections.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to DCS, PFN offers shorter operative times, reduces the blood transfusions requirements, achieves higher closed reduction success, enables faster fracture healing, and lowers reoperation incidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47843,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Orthopedics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331321/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative efficacy of proximal femoral nail <i>vs</i> dynamic condylar screw in treating unstable intertrochanteric fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed Mohamed Yousif Mohamed, Monzir Salih, Mohanad Abdulgadir, Ayman E Abbas, Duha Lutfi Turjuman\",\"doi\":\"10.5312/wjo.v15.i8.796\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Among the most frequent hip fractures are trochanteric fractures, which usually occur from low-energy trauma like minor falls, especially in older people with osteoporotic bones.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the treatment efficacy of dynamic condylar screws (DCS) and proximal femoral nails (PFN) for unstable intertrochanteric fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To find pertinent randomized controlled trials and retrospective observational studies comparing PFN with DCS for the management of unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures, a thorough search was carried out. For research studies published between January 1996 and April 2024, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were all searched. The complete texts of the papers were retrieved, vetted, and independently examined by two investigators. Disputes were settled by consensus, and any disagreements that persisted were arbitrated by a third author.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included six articles, comprising a total of 173 patients. Compared to the DCS, the PFN had a shorter operation time [mean difference (MD): -41.7 min, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -63.04 to -20.35, <i>P</i> = 0.0001], higher success rates with closed reduction techniques [risk ratio (RR): 34.05, 95%CI: 11.12-104.31, <i>P</i> < 0.00001], and required less intraoperative blood transfusion (MD: -1.4 units, 95%CI: -1.80 to -1.00, <i>P</i> < 0.00001). Additionally, the PFN showed shorter fracture union time (MD: -6.92 wk, 95%CI: -10.27 to -3.57, <i>P</i> < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of reoperation (RR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.17-0.82, <i>P</i> = 0.01). However, there was no discernible variation regarding hospital stay, implant-related complications, and infections.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to DCS, PFN offers shorter operative times, reduces the blood transfusions requirements, achieves higher closed reduction success, enables faster fracture healing, and lowers reoperation incidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Orthopedics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331321/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Orthopedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v15.i8.796\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v15.i8.796","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目的:评估动态髁螺钉(DCS)和股骨近端钉(PFN)治疗不稳定股骨转子间骨折的疗效:为了找到比较 PFN 和 DCS 治疗不稳定股骨转子间骨折的相关随机对照试验和回顾性观察研究,我们进行了全面检索。对于 1996 年 1 月至 2024 年 4 月期间发表的研究,对 PubMed、EMBASE、Scopus、Web of Science、Cochrane Library 和 Google Scholar 进行了检索。论文全文由两名调查人员检索、审核和独立审查。如有争议,则以协商一致的方式解决;如仍有分歧,则由第三位作者进行仲裁:本研究包括六篇文章,共涉及 173 名患者。与 DCS 相比,PFN 的手术时间更短[平均差(MD):-41.7 分钟,95% 置信区间(95%CI):-63.04 至 -20.35,P = 0.0001],闭合复位技术的成功率更高[风险比(RR):34.05,95%CI:11.12 至 104.31,P < 0.00001],术中所需输血量更少(MD:-1.4 单位,95%CI:-1.80 至 -1.00,P < 0.00001)。此外,PFN显示骨折愈合时间更短(MD:-6.92 wk,95%CI:-10.27 至 -3.57,P <0.0001),再次手术的发生率更低(RR:0.37,95%CI:0.17 至 0.82,P = 0.01)。然而,在住院时间、植入相关并发症和感染方面没有明显差异:结论:与 DCS 相比,PFN 的手术时间更短、输血量更少、闭合复位成功率更高、骨折愈合更快、再次手术发生率更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative efficacy of proximal femoral nail vs dynamic condylar screw in treating unstable intertrochanteric fractures.

Background: Among the most frequent hip fractures are trochanteric fractures, which usually occur from low-energy trauma like minor falls, especially in older people with osteoporotic bones.

Aim: To evaluate the treatment efficacy of dynamic condylar screws (DCS) and proximal femoral nails (PFN) for unstable intertrochanteric fractures.

Methods: To find pertinent randomized controlled trials and retrospective observational studies comparing PFN with DCS for the management of unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures, a thorough search was carried out. For research studies published between January 1996 and April 2024, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were all searched. The complete texts of the papers were retrieved, vetted, and independently examined by two investigators. Disputes were settled by consensus, and any disagreements that persisted were arbitrated by a third author.

Results: This study included six articles, comprising a total of 173 patients. Compared to the DCS, the PFN had a shorter operation time [mean difference (MD): -41.7 min, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -63.04 to -20.35, P = 0.0001], higher success rates with closed reduction techniques [risk ratio (RR): 34.05, 95%CI: 11.12-104.31, P < 0.00001], and required less intraoperative blood transfusion (MD: -1.4 units, 95%CI: -1.80 to -1.00, P < 0.00001). Additionally, the PFN showed shorter fracture union time (MD: -6.92 wk, 95%CI: -10.27 to -3.57, P < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of reoperation (RR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.17-0.82, P = 0.01). However, there was no discernible variation regarding hospital stay, implant-related complications, and infections.

Conclusion: Compared to DCS, PFN offers shorter operative times, reduces the blood transfusions requirements, achieves higher closed reduction success, enables faster fracture healing, and lowers reoperation incidence.

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
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
814
×
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