开放复位内固定vs原发性胫距跟骨后足钉治疗老年患者踝关节骨折:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.2
Foot & ankle international Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-12 DOI:10.1177/10711007251325841
John McDonald, Michael Oravic, William Wardell, Wonyong Lee
{"title":"开放复位内固定vs原发性胫距跟骨后足钉治疗老年患者踝关节骨折:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"John McDonald, Michael Oravic, William Wardell, Wonyong Lee","doi":"10.1177/10711007251325841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current literature lacks comprehensive information comparing primary tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) hindfoot nailing and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in the ankle fractures in the elderly population. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of 2 surgical techniques, primary TTC nailing and ORIF, for ankle fractures in the elderly.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our comprehensive literature review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Data investigated in this study included total infection, deep infection, superficial infection, hardware problems such as painful hardware, and hardware protrusion/pullout, nonunion/delayed union, reoperation, length of stay, and return to preoperative mobility level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total 5 studies were included in this study. In aggregate, 127 patients (42.9%) underwent TTC nailing, whereas 169/296 patients (57.1%) underwent ORIF. A lower rate of superficial infection was reported for the TTC nailing group: 2.1% (2/95) in TTC nailing vs 10.2% (14/137) in ORIF, with a relative ratio of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.08-0.85). The other outcome measures were not significantly different between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on our review of these studies that reported mostly early follow-up data, it appears that primary TTC nailing may be a viable alternative to ORIF for ankle fracture fixation in the elderly population. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because of heterogeneity across the included studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":94011,"journal":{"name":"Foot & ankle international","volume":" ","pages":"661-671"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Open Reduction and Internal Fixation vs Primary Tibiotalocalcaneal Hindfoot Nailing for Ankle Fractures in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"John McDonald, Michael Oravic, William Wardell, Wonyong Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10711007251325841\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current literature lacks comprehensive information comparing primary tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) hindfoot nailing and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in the ankle fractures in the elderly population. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of 2 surgical techniques, primary TTC nailing and ORIF, for ankle fractures in the elderly.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our comprehensive literature review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Data investigated in this study included total infection, deep infection, superficial infection, hardware problems such as painful hardware, and hardware protrusion/pullout, nonunion/delayed union, reoperation, length of stay, and return to preoperative mobility level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total 5 studies were included in this study. In aggregate, 127 patients (42.9%) underwent TTC nailing, whereas 169/296 patients (57.1%) underwent ORIF. A lower rate of superficial infection was reported for the TTC nailing group: 2.1% (2/95) in TTC nailing vs 10.2% (14/137) in ORIF, with a relative ratio of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.08-0.85). The other outcome measures were not significantly different between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on our review of these studies that reported mostly early follow-up data, it appears that primary TTC nailing may be a viable alternative to ORIF for ankle fracture fixation in the elderly population. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because of heterogeneity across the included studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94011,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foot & ankle international\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"661-671\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foot & ankle international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10711007251325841\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & ankle international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10711007251325841","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前的文献缺乏比较老年人群踝关节骨折的初级胫距足趾骨(TTC)后足内钉和切开复位内固定(ORIF)的全面资料。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评价和比较两种手术技术(原发性TTC内钉和ORIF)治疗老年人踝关节骨折的临床结果。方法:我们的综合文献综述遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,使用的数据库包括PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane Library。本研究调查的数据包括完全感染、深度感染、浅表感染、硬件问题,如疼痛硬件、硬件突出/拔出、不愈合/延迟愈合、再手术、住院时间和恢复到术前活动水平。结果:本研究共纳入5项研究。总共有127例患者(42.9%)接受了TTC内钉,而169/296例患者(57.1%)接受了ORIF。TTC组表面感染率较低:TTC组为2.1% (2/95),ORIF组为10.2%(14/137),相对比值为0.26 (95% CI, 0.08-0.85)。其他结果指标在两组间无显著差异。结论:基于我们对这些报告早期随访数据的研究的回顾,原发性TTC内钉可能是老年人踝关节骨折固定的可行替代ORIF。然而,由于纳入研究的异质性,这些发现应谨慎解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Open Reduction and Internal Fixation vs Primary Tibiotalocalcaneal Hindfoot Nailing for Ankle Fractures in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Current literature lacks comprehensive information comparing primary tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) hindfoot nailing and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in the ankle fractures in the elderly population. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of 2 surgical techniques, primary TTC nailing and ORIF, for ankle fractures in the elderly.

Methods: Our comprehensive literature review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Data investigated in this study included total infection, deep infection, superficial infection, hardware problems such as painful hardware, and hardware protrusion/pullout, nonunion/delayed union, reoperation, length of stay, and return to preoperative mobility level.

Results: Total 5 studies were included in this study. In aggregate, 127 patients (42.9%) underwent TTC nailing, whereas 169/296 patients (57.1%) underwent ORIF. A lower rate of superficial infection was reported for the TTC nailing group: 2.1% (2/95) in TTC nailing vs 10.2% (14/137) in ORIF, with a relative ratio of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.08-0.85). The other outcome measures were not significantly different between groups.

Conclusion: Based on our review of these studies that reported mostly early follow-up data, it appears that primary TTC nailing may be a viable alternative to ORIF for ankle fracture fixation in the elderly population. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because of heterogeneity across the included 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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信