经股截肢患者坐骨下窝是否优于其他部位?随机对照临床试验的系统综述。

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS
Nicolas Bevacqua, Ticiana E Navarro, Gabriela B Dell Elce, Leonardo Intelangelo
{"title":"经股截肢患者坐骨下窝是否优于其他部位?随机对照临床试验的系统综述。","authors":"Nicolas Bevacqua, Ticiana E Navarro, Gabriela B Dell Elce, Leonardo Intelangelo","doi":"10.1097/PXR.0000000000000435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rehabilitation is often complex for persons with transfemoral amputation, and poor socket fit is one of the main factors affecting gait re-education, rehabilitation, and quality of life. The present study systematically reviewed the literature to test whether the subischial socket provides better outcomes in comfort, quality of life, and mobility than other transfemoral sockets. Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, Physical Therapy Evidence Database Scale, Epistemonikos, Cochrane, BIREME, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to January 2024 to identify randomized and controlled trials. Two authors independently screened records and assessed the risk of bias. We performed a narrative synthesis of the evidence and used the standardized mean difference and mean difference for meta-analyses and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for recommendations. We identified 7 randomized and controlled clinical trials. Five studies compared the subischial socket with the ischial containment socket (IC), 1 study compared the IC with the Marlo anatomical socket, and 1 study compared the IC with the quadrilateral. Very low certainty showed a difference in comfort (1 study: mean difference = 1.4 [95% CI 0.61, 2.19]), but no in quality of life (2 studies: standardized mean difference = 1.28 (95% CI -1.04, 3.59), and mobility (2 studies: mean difference = 0.11 (95% CI -1.08, 1.29). We observed differences between the subischial socket and the IC in comfort but not in quality of life, mobility, and stability. Furthermore, we found a very low certainty that the subischial socket provides better outcomes than the IC in comfort, quality of life, and mobility.</p>","PeriodicalId":49657,"journal":{"name":"Prosthetics and Orthotics International","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the subischial socket better than others in subjects with transfemoral amputation? A systematic review of randomized and controlled clinical trials.\",\"authors\":\"Nicolas Bevacqua, Ticiana E Navarro, Gabriela B Dell Elce, Leonardo Intelangelo\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PXR.0000000000000435\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Rehabilitation is often complex for persons with transfemoral amputation, and poor socket fit is one of the main factors affecting gait re-education, rehabilitation, and quality of life. The present study systematically reviewed the literature to test whether the subischial socket provides better outcomes in comfort, quality of life, and mobility than other transfemoral sockets. Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, Physical Therapy Evidence Database Scale, Epistemonikos, Cochrane, BIREME, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to January 2024 to identify randomized and controlled trials. Two authors independently screened records and assessed the risk of bias. We performed a narrative synthesis of the evidence and used the standardized mean difference and mean difference for meta-analyses and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for recommendations. We identified 7 randomized and controlled clinical trials. Five studies compared the subischial socket with the ischial containment socket (IC), 1 study compared the IC with the Marlo anatomical socket, and 1 study compared the IC with the quadrilateral. Very low certainty showed a difference in comfort (1 study: mean difference = 1.4 [95% CI 0.61, 2.19]), but no in quality of life (2 studies: standardized mean difference = 1.28 (95% CI -1.04, 3.59), and mobility (2 studies: mean difference = 0.11 (95% CI -1.08, 1.29). We observed differences between the subischial socket and the IC in comfort but not in quality of life, mobility, and stability. Furthermore, we found a very low certainty that the subischial socket provides better outcomes than the IC in comfort, quality of life, and mobility.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prosthetics and Orthotics International\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prosthetics and Orthotics International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PXR.0000000000000435\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prosthetics and Orthotics International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PXR.0000000000000435","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

经股截肢患者的康复往往是复杂的,而窝腔配合不良是影响步态再教育、康复和生活质量的主要因素之一。本研究系统地回顾了文献,以测试坐骨下窝是否比其他经股窝在舒适度、生活质量和活动能力方面提供更好的结果。系统回顾和荟萃分析。我们检索了MEDLINE、物理治疗证据数据库量表、Epistemonikos、Cochrane、BIREME、Web of Science和Scopus,从成立到2024年1月,以确定随机和对照试验。两位作者独立筛选记录并评估偏倚风险。我们对证据进行了叙述性综合,并使用标准化平均差和平均差进行meta分析,并使用推荐分级、评估、发展和评价方法进行推荐。我们确定了7个随机对照临床试验。5项研究比较了坐骨下窝与坐骨包容窝(IC), 1项研究比较了坐骨包容窝与Marlo解剖窝,1项研究比较了坐骨包容窝与四边形。非常低的确定性显示舒适度(1项研究:平均差值= 1.4 [95% CI 0.61, 2.19]),但在生活质量(2项研究:标准化平均差值= 1.28 (95% CI -1.04, 3.59)和活动能力(2项研究:平均差值= 0.11 (95% CI -1.08, 1.29)方面没有差异。我们观察到坐骨下窝和IC在舒适度上的差异,但在生活质量、活动性和稳定性上没有差异。此外,我们发现坐骨下窝在舒适度、生活质量和活动能力方面优于内固定的可能性非常低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is the subischial socket better than others in subjects with transfemoral amputation? A systematic review of randomized and controlled clinical trials.

Rehabilitation is often complex for persons with transfemoral amputation, and poor socket fit is one of the main factors affecting gait re-education, rehabilitation, and quality of life. The present study systematically reviewed the literature to test whether the subischial socket provides better outcomes in comfort, quality of life, and mobility than other transfemoral sockets. Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, Physical Therapy Evidence Database Scale, Epistemonikos, Cochrane, BIREME, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to January 2024 to identify randomized and controlled trials. Two authors independently screened records and assessed the risk of bias. We performed a narrative synthesis of the evidence and used the standardized mean difference and mean difference for meta-analyses and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for recommendations. We identified 7 randomized and controlled clinical trials. Five studies compared the subischial socket with the ischial containment socket (IC), 1 study compared the IC with the Marlo anatomical socket, and 1 study compared the IC with the quadrilateral. Very low certainty showed a difference in comfort (1 study: mean difference = 1.4 [95% CI 0.61, 2.19]), but no in quality of life (2 studies: standardized mean difference = 1.28 (95% CI -1.04, 3.59), and mobility (2 studies: mean difference = 0.11 (95% CI -1.08, 1.29). We observed differences between the subischial socket and the IC in comfort but not in quality of life, mobility, and stability. Furthermore, we found a very low certainty that the subischial socket provides better outcomes than the IC in comfort, quality of life, and mobility.

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
2.30
自引率
13.30%
发文量
208
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Prosthetics and Orthotics International is an international, multidisciplinary journal for all professionals who have an interest in the medical, clinical, rehabilitation, technical, educational and research aspects of prosthetics, orthotics and rehabilitation engineering, as well as their related topics.
×
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