胫骨平台骨折的手术固定方法。

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Toby O Smith, Laura Casey, Iain R McNamara, Caroline B Hing
{"title":"胫骨平台骨折的手术固定方法。","authors":"Toby O Smith, Laura Casey, Iain R McNamara, Caroline B Hing","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD009679.pub3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tibial plateau fractures, which are intra-articular injuries of the knee joint, are often difficult to treat and have a high complication rate, including early-onset osteoarthritis. The most common treatment for complex tibial plateau fractures is surgical fixation. Additionally, orthopaedic surgeons often use bone defect fillers to address bone defects caused by the injury. Currently, there is no consensus on the best method of fixation and on whether bone defect fillers are necessary.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the benefits and harms of different surgical interventions and bone defect fillers for treating tibial plateau fractures.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries up to March 2023. We also searched conference proceedings and the grey literature.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing surgical interventions for treating tibial plateau fractures and different types of filler for bone defects.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors independently screened search results, selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our primary outcomes (and the specific measures we considered most relevant) were generic quality of life (general health score in the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)), patient-reported lower limb function (Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score), and adverse events (frequency of unplanned reoperation). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included 15 trials in the review, with a total of 948 adult participants. Nine trials compared different types of fixation, and six trials evaluated different types of bone graft substitutes. All 15 trials were small and at high risk of bias. We considered most available evidence to be of very low certainty, meaning we have very little confidence in the results. Only limited pooling was possible. One trial compared circular fixation combined with insertion of percutaneous screws (hybrid fixation) versus standard open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in 82 people with open or closed Schatzker types V or VI tibial plateau fractures. At 24 months' follow-up, hybrid fixation compared with ORIF may have little or no effect on SF-36 general health score (MD 6 points higher, 95% CI 7.7 points lower to 19.7 points higher; 66 participants), patient-reported lower limb function according to the HSS score (MD 7 points higher, 95% CI 2.4 points lower to 16.4 points higher; 66 participants), or frequency of unplanned reoperation (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.32; 83 fractures (82 participants)). However, the evidence for all three outcomes is very uncertain. Three trials (with 242 participants) compared single-plating ORIF versus double-plating ORIF. There may be little to know difference in patient-reported lower limb function (HSS score) at 24 months' follow-up in people who undergo single-plating ORIF compared with those who undergo double-plating ORIF (MD 0.2 points higher, 95% CI 2.12 points lower to 2.52 points higher; 1 study, 84 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. There were no data for quality of life or unplanned reoperation at 24 months' follow-up. Six trials (including 368 participants) compared bone substitute versus autologous bone graft (autograft) for managing bone defects. No trials reported SF-36 general health score, HSS score, or frequency of unplanned reoperation at 24 months' follow-up.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>There is insufficient evidence to ascertain the best method of fixation or the best method of addressing bone defects during surgery in people with tibial plateau fractures. Further well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"8 ","pages":"CD009679"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11339927/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgical fixation methods for tibial plateau fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Toby O Smith, Laura Casey, Iain R McNamara, Caroline B Hing\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD009679.pub3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tibial plateau fractures, which are intra-articular injuries of the knee joint, are often difficult to treat and have a high complication rate, including early-onset osteoarthritis. The most common treatment for complex tibial plateau fractures is surgical fixation. Additionally, orthopaedic surgeons often use bone defect fillers to address bone defects caused by the injury. Currently, there is no consensus on the best method of fixation and on whether bone defect fillers are necessary.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the benefits and harms of different surgical interventions and bone defect fillers for treating tibial plateau fractures.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries up to March 2023. We also searched conference proceedings and the grey literature.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing surgical interventions for treating tibial plateau fractures and different types of filler for bone defects.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors independently screened search results, selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our primary outcomes (and the specific measures we considered most relevant) were generic quality of life (general health score in the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)), patient-reported lower limb function (Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score), and adverse events (frequency of unplanned reoperation). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included 15 trials in the review, with a total of 948 adult participants. Nine trials compared different types of fixation, and six trials evaluated different types of bone graft substitutes. All 15 trials were small and at high risk of bias. We considered most available evidence to be of very low certainty, meaning we have very little confidence in the results. Only limited pooling was possible. One trial compared circular fixation combined with insertion of percutaneous screws (hybrid fixation) versus standard open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in 82 people with open or closed Schatzker types V or VI tibial plateau fractures. At 24 months' follow-up, hybrid fixation compared with ORIF may have little or no effect on SF-36 general health score (MD 6 points higher, 95% CI 7.7 points lower to 19.7 points higher; 66 participants), patient-reported lower limb function according to the HSS score (MD 7 points higher, 95% CI 2.4 points lower to 16.4 points higher; 66 participants), or frequency of unplanned reoperation (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.32; 83 fractures (82 participants)). However, the evidence for all three outcomes is very uncertain. Three trials (with 242 participants) compared single-plating ORIF versus double-plating ORIF. There may be little to know difference in patient-reported lower limb function (HSS score) at 24 months' follow-up in people who undergo single-plating ORIF compared with those who undergo double-plating ORIF (MD 0.2 points higher, 95% CI 2.12 points lower to 2.52 points higher; 1 study, 84 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. There were no data for quality of life or unplanned reoperation at 24 months' follow-up. Six trials (including 368 participants) compared bone substitute versus autologous bone graft (autograft) for managing bone defects. No trials reported SF-36 general health score, HSS score, or frequency of unplanned reoperation at 24 months' follow-up.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>There is insufficient evidence to ascertain the best method of fixation or the best method of addressing bone defects during surgery in people with tibial plateau fractures. Further well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"CD009679\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11339927/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009679.pub3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009679.pub3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:胫骨平台骨折是膝关节的关节内损伤,通常难以治疗,并发症发生率高,包括早期骨关节炎。复杂的胫骨平台骨折最常见的治疗方法是手术固定。此外,矫形外科医生通常使用骨缺损填充物来处理损伤造成的骨缺损。目前,对于最佳的固定方法以及是否有必要使用骨缺损填充物还没有达成共识:评估治疗胫骨平台骨折的不同手术干预和骨缺损填充物的利弊:我们检索了 CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase 和截至 2023 年 3 月的试验登记。我们还检索了会议论文集和灰色文献:我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)和准RCT,这些试验比较了治疗胫骨平台骨折的手术干预措施和不同类型的骨缺损填充物:两位综述作者独立筛选检索结果、选择研究、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。我们计算了二分结果的风险比(RRs)和连续结果的平均差(MDs)或标准化平均差(SMDs)以及95%置信区间(CIs)。我们的主要结果(以及我们认为最相关的具体指标)是一般生活质量(36项短式健康调查(SF-36)中的一般健康评分)、患者报告的下肢功能(特殊外科医院(HSS)评分)和不良事件(计划外再次手术的频率)。我们使用 GRADE 评估证据的确定性:我们将 15 项试验纳入审查范围,共有 948 名成人参与者。九项试验比较了不同类型的固定方法,六项试验评估了不同类型的骨移植替代物。所有15项试验的规模都很小,偏倚风险很高。我们认为大多数现有证据的确定性都很低,这意味着我们对结果的可信度很低。只能进行有限的汇总。一项试验对82例开放性或闭合性Schatzker V型或VI型胫骨平台骨折患者进行了环形固定结合插入经皮螺钉(混合固定)与标准切开复位内固定(ORIF)的比较。在24个月的随访中,混合固定与开放复位内固定相比,对SF-36一般健康评分(MD高6分,95% CI低7.7分至高19.7分;66名参与者)、患者根据HSS评分报告的下肢功能(MD高7分,95% CI低2.4分至高16.4分;66名参与者)或非计划再手术频率(RR 0.78,95% CI 0.45至1.32;83例骨折(82名参与者))的影响很小或没有影响。然而,这三种结果的证据都很不确定。三项试验(242 名参与者)比较了单层复位与双层复位。在24个月的随访中,接受单层置入ORIF与双层置入ORIF的患者在患者报告的下肢功能(HSS评分)方面可能几乎没有差异(MD高0.2分,95% CI低2.12分至高2.52分;1项研究,84名参与者),但证据非常不确定。在24个月的随访中,没有关于生活质量或计划外再次手术的数据。六项试验(包括 368 名参与者)比较了骨替代物和自体骨移植(自体移植)对骨缺损的处理效果。没有任何试验报告了SF-36总体健康评分、HSS评分或随访24个月时计划外再次手术的频率:作者的结论:目前还没有足够的证据来确定胫骨平台骨折患者手术期间的最佳固定方法或处理骨缺损的最佳方法。有必要进一步开展设计合理、样本量更大的 RCT 研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Surgical fixation methods for tibial plateau fractures.

Background: Tibial plateau fractures, which are intra-articular injuries of the knee joint, are often difficult to treat and have a high complication rate, including early-onset osteoarthritis. The most common treatment for complex tibial plateau fractures is surgical fixation. Additionally, orthopaedic surgeons often use bone defect fillers to address bone defects caused by the injury. Currently, there is no consensus on the best method of fixation and on whether bone defect fillers are necessary.

Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of different surgical interventions and bone defect fillers for treating tibial plateau fractures.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries up to March 2023. We also searched conference proceedings and the grey literature.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing surgical interventions for treating tibial plateau fractures and different types of filler for bone defects.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened search results, selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our primary outcomes (and the specific measures we considered most relevant) were generic quality of life (general health score in the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)), patient-reported lower limb function (Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score), and adverse events (frequency of unplanned reoperation). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

Main results: We included 15 trials in the review, with a total of 948 adult participants. Nine trials compared different types of fixation, and six trials evaluated different types of bone graft substitutes. All 15 trials were small and at high risk of bias. We considered most available evidence to be of very low certainty, meaning we have very little confidence in the results. Only limited pooling was possible. One trial compared circular fixation combined with insertion of percutaneous screws (hybrid fixation) versus standard open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in 82 people with open or closed Schatzker types V or VI tibial plateau fractures. At 24 months' follow-up, hybrid fixation compared with ORIF may have little or no effect on SF-36 general health score (MD 6 points higher, 95% CI 7.7 points lower to 19.7 points higher; 66 participants), patient-reported lower limb function according to the HSS score (MD 7 points higher, 95% CI 2.4 points lower to 16.4 points higher; 66 participants), or frequency of unplanned reoperation (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.32; 83 fractures (82 participants)). However, the evidence for all three outcomes is very uncertain. Three trials (with 242 participants) compared single-plating ORIF versus double-plating ORIF. There may be little to know difference in patient-reported lower limb function (HSS score) at 24 months' follow-up in people who undergo single-plating ORIF compared with those who undergo double-plating ORIF (MD 0.2 points higher, 95% CI 2.12 points lower to 2.52 points higher; 1 study, 84 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. There were no data for quality of life or unplanned reoperation at 24 months' follow-up. Six trials (including 368 participants) compared bone substitute versus autologous bone graft (autograft) for managing bone defects. No trials reported SF-36 general health score, HSS score, or frequency of unplanned reoperation at 24 months' follow-up.

Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to ascertain the best method of fixation or the best method of addressing bone defects during surgery in people with tibial plateau fractures. Further well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes are warranted.

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
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
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