缝合扣与钩状钢板在治疗急性洛克伍德 III 型肩锁关节脱位方面无显著差异:系统回顾

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Chengxin Xie, Zhenghua Hong, Yongwei Su, Jiao Jiang, Hua Luo
{"title":"缝合扣与钩状钢板在治疗急性洛克伍德 III 型肩锁关节脱位方面无显著差异:系统回顾","authors":"Chengxin Xie, Zhenghua Hong, Yongwei Su, Jiao Jiang, Hua Luo","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.09.055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To systematically review the current evidence to compare the differences in outcomes of suture button (SB) versus hook plate (HP) fixation for treating acute Rockwood type III acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two reviewers independently conducted a literature search based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies comparing SB and HP in the treatment of acute Rockwood type III ACJ dislocation. Constant score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, coracoclavicular distance, operation time, and occurrence of complications were assessed. Risk of bias was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions tools.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 16 studies were included, consisting of 2 randomized controlled trials and 14 non-randomized controlled trials, with 471 patients in the SB group and 445 patients in the HP group. Among the included studies that reported patient-reported outcomes, 4 indicated significantly higher Constant scores in the SB group compared with the HP group whereas the remaining 5 found no difference between the groups. Among the 5 included studies that reported VAS scores, 2 showed statistically significant differences favoring the SB group. Among the 10 included studies that reported operation time, 3 found a shorter operation time in the SB group than in the HP group whereas 2 indicated a longer operation time for SB surgery compared with HP treatment. However, there was no statistically significant difference in coracoclavicular distance or the incidence of complications between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The evidence suggests no clear clinical superiority of SBs over HPs in treating acute Rockwood type III ACJ dislocations. Whereas some studies show that SB treatment may offer benefits such as higher Constant scores and lower VAS scores, most outcomes reveal no significant differences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level Ⅲ, systematic review of Level II and Ⅲ studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No Significant Difference Between Suture Button and Hook Plate in Treating Acute Rockwood Type III Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Chengxin Xie, Zhenghua Hong, Yongwei Su, Jiao Jiang, Hua Luo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.09.055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To systematically review the current evidence to compare the differences in outcomes of suture button (SB) versus hook plate (HP) fixation for treating acute Rockwood type III acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two reviewers independently conducted a literature search based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies comparing SB and HP in the treatment of acute Rockwood type III ACJ dislocation. Constant score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, coracoclavicular distance, operation time, and occurrence of complications were assessed. Risk of bias was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions tools.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 16 studies were included, consisting of 2 randomized controlled trials and 14 non-randomized controlled trials, with 471 patients in the SB group and 445 patients in the HP group. Among the included studies that reported patient-reported outcomes, 4 indicated significantly higher Constant scores in the SB group compared with the HP group whereas the remaining 5 found no difference between the groups. Among the 5 included studies that reported VAS scores, 2 showed statistically significant differences favoring the SB group. Among the 10 included studies that reported operation time, 3 found a shorter operation time in the SB group than in the HP group whereas 2 indicated a longer operation time for SB surgery compared with HP treatment. However, there was no statistically significant difference in coracoclavicular distance or the incidence of complications between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The evidence suggests no clear clinical superiority of SBs over HPs in treating acute Rockwood type III ACJ dislocations. Whereas some studies show that SB treatment may offer benefits such as higher Constant scores and lower VAS scores, most outcomes reveal no significant differences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level Ⅲ, systematic review of Level II and Ⅲ studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"88\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.09.055\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.09.055","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在系统回顾现有证据,比较缝合扣(SB)与钩板(HP)固定治疗急性Rockwood III型肩锁关节(ACJ)脱位的疗效差异:两名审稿人根据系统综述和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目独立进行了文献检索。在PubMed、EMBASE、Medline和Cochrane图书馆中系统检索了比较SB和HP治疗急性Rockwood III型ACJ脱位的研究。对恒定评分、视觉模拟量表(VAS)、锁骨间距、手术时间和并发症发生情况进行了评估。采用 Cochrane 协作工具和 ROBINS-I 工具评估偏倚风险:共纳入了 16 项研究,包括 2 项 RCT 和 14 项非 RCT,其中 SB 组有 471 名患者,HP 组有 445 名患者。在纳入的报告患者报告结果的研究中,4 项研究表明 SB 组的 Constant 得分明显高于 HP 组,而其余 5 项研究发现两组之间没有差异。在纳入的 5 项报告 VAS 评分的研究中,有 2 项研究显示 SB 组的差异具有统计学意义。在 10 项报告手术时间的纳入研究中,有 3 项研究表明 SB 手术的手术时间比 HP 短,有 2 项研究表明 SB 手术的手术时间比 HP 长。然而,两组患者的锁骨间距和并发症发生率在统计学上并无显著差异:有证据表明,在治疗急性Rockwood III型交叉肘关节脱位方面,SB手术在临床上并没有明显优于HP手术。虽然一些研究显示 SB 可提供更高的恒定评分和更低的 VAS 评分等益处,但大多数结果显示并无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
No Significant Difference Between Suture Button and Hook Plate in Treating Acute Rockwood Type III Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: To systematically review the current evidence to compare the differences in outcomes of suture button (SB) versus hook plate (HP) fixation for treating acute Rockwood type III acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation.

Methods: Two reviewers independently conducted a literature search based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies comparing SB and HP in the treatment of acute Rockwood type III ACJ dislocation. Constant score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, coracoclavicular distance, operation time, and occurrence of complications were assessed. Risk of bias was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions tools.

Results: A total of 16 studies were included, consisting of 2 randomized controlled trials and 14 non-randomized controlled trials, with 471 patients in the SB group and 445 patients in the HP group. Among the included studies that reported patient-reported outcomes, 4 indicated significantly higher Constant scores in the SB group compared with the HP group whereas the remaining 5 found no difference between the groups. Among the 5 included studies that reported VAS scores, 2 showed statistically significant differences favoring the SB group. Among the 10 included studies that reported operation time, 3 found a shorter operation time in the SB group than in the HP group whereas 2 indicated a longer operation time for SB surgery compared with HP treatment. However, there was no statistically significant difference in coracoclavicular distance or the incidence of complications between the 2 groups.

Conclusions: The evidence suggests no clear clinical superiority of SBs over HPs in treating acute Rockwood type III ACJ dislocations. Whereas some studies show that SB treatment may offer benefits such as higher Constant scores and lower VAS scores, most outcomes reveal no significant differences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level Ⅲ, systematic review of Level II and Ⅲ studies.

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
9.30
自引率
17.00%
发文量
555
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Nowhere is minimally invasive surgery explained better than in Arthroscopy, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Every issue enables you to put into perspective the usefulness of the various emerging arthroscopic techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods -- along with their applications in various situations -- are discussed in relation to their efficiency, efficacy and cost benefit. As a special incentive, paid subscribers also receive access to the journal expanded website.
×
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