开放式与关节镜下踝关节融合术:对结果和并发症的综合综述。

IF 3.3 4区 医学 Q1 Medicine
P I Fiore, S Soares, A Seidel, R Garibaldi
{"title":"开放式与关节镜下踝关节融合术:对结果和并发症的综合综述。","authors":"P I Fiore, S Soares, A Seidel, R Garibaldi","doi":"10.26355/eurrev_202505_37225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>OBJECTIVE: End-stage ankle arthritis is a debilitating condition for which ankle arthrodesis (AA) remains a principal surgical option. Open and arthroscopic techniques are widely used, yet the literature presents heterogeneous findings. This umbrella review consolidates systematic reviews and meta-analyses to compare open vs. arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis in terms of fusion rates, complications, and hospital stay duration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following a registered protocol (PROSPERO ID: CRD420246233349), we searched articles on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from November 2 to November 10, 2024. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses in English comparing open and arthroscopic AA, capturing data on fusion rates, postoperative complications (e.g., nonunion, infection), and hospital stay. Quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2. A descriptive synthesis was chosen due to methodological heterogeneity. RESULTS: Eight systematic reviews encompassing 74 primary studies (4,631 total procedures) met the inclusion criteria. Fusion rates were consistently high but higher with arthroscopic techniques (range 88.7-95.1%) compared to open methods (range 78.5-85.0%), with odds ratios frequently around 2.0-3.3 favoring arthroscopy. Complication rates (e.g., infection, wound problems) were significantly lower in arthroscopic groups, typically 6-10% vs. 13-18.5% in open groups, corresponding to odds ratios of approximately 0.47-0.60 in favor of arthroscopy. Additionally, hospital stays were shortened by an average of 1.2-1.8 days with arthroscopic approaches, reflecting a weighted mean difference often exceeding -1.60 days. These findings were attributed mainly to the minimally invasive nature of arthroscopy, which reduces soft tissue disruption and expedites recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis demonstrates superior outcomes over open techniques, offering higher fusion rates, fewer complications, and shorter hospital stays. Although open approaches remain viable, particularly for complex deformities, these data underscore the procedural and systemic advantages of arthroscopy in most clinical scenarios. Further research should aim to refine indications, optimize arthroscopic protocols, and investigate patient-specific factors - such as smoking status and comorbidities - that may influence surgical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Graphical abstract: </strong>https://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/Graphical-Abstract-16.jpg.</p>","PeriodicalId":12152,"journal":{"name":"European review for medical and pharmacological sciences","volume":"29 5","pages":"268-277"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Open vs. arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis: a comprehensive umbrella review of outcomes and complications.\",\"authors\":\"P I Fiore, S Soares, A Seidel, R Garibaldi\",\"doi\":\"10.26355/eurrev_202505_37225\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>OBJECTIVE: End-stage ankle arthritis is a debilitating condition for which ankle arthrodesis (AA) remains a principal surgical option. Open and arthroscopic techniques are widely used, yet the literature presents heterogeneous findings. This umbrella review consolidates systematic reviews and meta-analyses to compare open vs. arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis in terms of fusion rates, complications, and hospital stay duration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following a registered protocol (PROSPERO ID: CRD420246233349), we searched articles on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from November 2 to November 10, 2024. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses in English comparing open and arthroscopic AA, capturing data on fusion rates, postoperative complications (e.g., nonunion, infection), and hospital stay. Quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2. A descriptive synthesis was chosen due to methodological heterogeneity. RESULTS: Eight systematic reviews encompassing 74 primary studies (4,631 total procedures) met the inclusion criteria. Fusion rates were consistently high but higher with arthroscopic techniques (range 88.7-95.1%) compared to open methods (range 78.5-85.0%), with odds ratios frequently around 2.0-3.3 favoring arthroscopy. Complication rates (e.g., infection, wound problems) were significantly lower in arthroscopic groups, typically 6-10% vs. 13-18.5% in open groups, corresponding to odds ratios of approximately 0.47-0.60 in favor of arthroscopy. Additionally, hospital stays were shortened by an average of 1.2-1.8 days with arthroscopic approaches, reflecting a weighted mean difference often exceeding -1.60 days. These findings were attributed mainly to the minimally invasive nature of arthroscopy, which reduces soft tissue disruption and expedites recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis demonstrates superior outcomes over open techniques, offering higher fusion rates, fewer complications, and shorter hospital stays. Although open approaches remain viable, particularly for complex deformities, these data underscore the procedural and systemic advantages of arthroscopy in most clinical scenarios. Further research should aim to refine indications, optimize arthroscopic protocols, and investigate patient-specific factors - such as smoking status and comorbidities - that may influence surgical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Graphical abstract: </strong>https://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/Graphical-Abstract-16.jpg.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European review for medical and pharmacological sciences\",\"volume\":\"29 5\",\"pages\":\"268-277\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European review for medical and pharmacological sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202505_37225\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European review for medical and pharmacological sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202505_37225","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:终末期踝关节关节炎是一种衰弱性疾病,踝关节融合术(AA)仍然是主要的手术选择。开放和关节镜技术被广泛使用,但文献显示不同的结果。本综述综合了系统综述和荟萃分析,比较了开放性与关节镜下踝关节融合术在融合率、并发症和住院时间方面的差异。材料和方法:按照注册协议(PROSPERO ID: CRD420246233349),我们检索了2024年11月2日至11月10日在PubMed、Embase和Cochrane Library上的文章。我们纳入了比较开放和关节镜下AA的系统综述和meta分析,获取融合率、术后并发症(如不愈合、感染)和住院时间的数据。用AMSTAR 2评估质量。由于方法的异质性,选择了描述性综合。结果:8项系统综述包括74项主要研究(4,631个程序)符合纳入标准。与开放式方法(78.5-85.0%)相比,关节镜技术的融合率一直较高(88.7-95.1%),优势比通常在2.0-3.3左右。关节镜组的并发症发生率(如感染、伤口问题)明显较低,通常为6-10%,而开放组为13-18.5%,相对于支持关节镜组的优势比约为0.47-0.60。此外,关节镜入路平均缩短住院时间1.2-1.8天,反映出加权平均差异通常超过-1.60天。这些发现主要归因于关节镜的微创性,它减少了软组织的破坏并加速了恢复。结论:关节镜下踝关节融合术优于开放技术,具有更高的融合率、更少的并发症和更短的住院时间。尽管开放入路仍然是可行的,特别是对于复杂的畸形,这些数据强调了关节镜在大多数临床情况下的程序性和系统性优势。进一步的研究应旨在完善适应症,优化关节镜方案,并调查可能影响手术结果的患者特异性因素,如吸烟状况和合并症。图形摘要:https://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/Graphical-Abstract-16.jpg。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Open vs. arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis: a comprehensive umbrella review of outcomes and complications.

OBJECTIVE: End-stage ankle arthritis is a debilitating condition for which ankle arthrodesis (AA) remains a principal surgical option. Open and arthroscopic techniques are widely used, yet the literature presents heterogeneous findings. This umbrella review consolidates systematic reviews and meta-analyses to compare open vs. arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis in terms of fusion rates, complications, and hospital stay duration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following a registered protocol (PROSPERO ID: CRD420246233349), we searched articles on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from November 2 to November 10, 2024. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses in English comparing open and arthroscopic AA, capturing data on fusion rates, postoperative complications (e.g., nonunion, infection), and hospital stay. Quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2. A descriptive synthesis was chosen due to methodological heterogeneity. RESULTS: Eight systematic reviews encompassing 74 primary studies (4,631 total procedures) met the inclusion criteria. Fusion rates were consistently high but higher with arthroscopic techniques (range 88.7-95.1%) compared to open methods (range 78.5-85.0%), with odds ratios frequently around 2.0-3.3 favoring arthroscopy. Complication rates (e.g., infection, wound problems) were significantly lower in arthroscopic groups, typically 6-10% vs. 13-18.5% in open groups, corresponding to odds ratios of approximately 0.47-0.60 in favor of arthroscopy. Additionally, hospital stays were shortened by an average of 1.2-1.8 days with arthroscopic approaches, reflecting a weighted mean difference often exceeding -1.60 days. These findings were attributed mainly to the minimally invasive nature of arthroscopy, which reduces soft tissue disruption and expedites recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis demonstrates superior outcomes over open techniques, offering higher fusion rates, fewer complications, and shorter hospital stays. Although open approaches remain viable, particularly for complex deformities, these data underscore the procedural and systemic advantages of arthroscopy in most clinical scenarios. Further research should aim to refine indications, optimize arthroscopic protocols, and investigate patient-specific factors - such as smoking status and comorbidities - that may influence surgical outcomes.

Graphical abstract: https://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/Graphical-Abstract-16.jpg.

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
5.30
自引率
6.10%
发文量
906
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, a fortnightly journal, acts as an information exchange tool on several aspects of medical and pharmacological sciences. It publishes reviews, original articles, and results from original research. The purposes of the Journal are to encourage interdisciplinary discussions and to contribute to the advancement of medicine. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences includes: -Editorials- Reviews- Original articles- Trials- Brief communications- Case reports (only if of particular interest and accompanied by a short review)
×
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