全肘关节置换术前后假体周围骨折的分类治疗:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.1 Q1 SURGERY
Lara Zankena, Lisa Luna Beck, Christian Hierholzer, Hans-Christoph Pape, Sascha Halvachizadeh, Florin Allemann
{"title":"全肘关节置换术前后假体周围骨折的分类治疗:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Lara Zankena, Lisa Luna Beck, Christian Hierholzer, Hans-Christoph Pape, Sascha Halvachizadeh, Florin Allemann","doi":"10.1186/s13037-025-00447-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Treatment of periprosthetic fractures around the elbow remains a challenge. The goal of this study was to present classification-based treatment strategies of periprosthetic fractures around elbow prosthesis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of published articles in English or German language that investigated classification systems and treatment strategies of fractures around elbow prosthesis without timeframe limitations. Articles without full-text availability were excluded. The search included the following data bases: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science (WoS). The fractures where classified according to the most commonly utilized classification system. Outcome parameters included follow-up time, bone union and range of motion. After deduplication title and abstract screening and full-text analyses were performed by two independent researchers. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROBINS 1) for non-randomized studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This systematic review included 26 articles that included 11 reviews (42.3%), 12 case reports (46.1%) and 3 (11.6%) cohort studies. In total 85 patients were included with a mean age of 68.7 (SD 11.1) years. Most patients were female (n = 61, 73.5%). Fractures were all classified according to Mayo classification. In most reports, type 1 fractures without stem loosening were treated non-operatively, type 2 and 3 fractures without stem loosening with fracture fixation, type 2 fractures with stem loosening with revision arthroplasty. The time to bone union was comparable in fracture fixation versus revision surgery (18.2, SD 9.4 weeks vs. 12.3, SD 5.4 weeks, p = 0.294). The degree/ (or range) of extension was comparable in both groups (9.8, SD 11.2° versus 17.4, SD 16.6°, p = 0.335). The degree of flexion was comparable in both groups (117.5, SD 15.1° versus 127.9, SD 10.3°, p = 0.335).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Treatment of periprosthetic fractures around elbow arthroplasty remains a challenge. The treatment strategy is based on the location of the fracture and the stability of the elbow prosthesis. The lack of high-quality research prohibits a final evidence- based recommendation for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures around the elbow.</p>","PeriodicalId":46782,"journal":{"name":"Patient Safety in Surgery","volume":"19 1","pages":"25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12487118/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Classification-based treatment of periprosthetic fractures around total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Lara Zankena, Lisa Luna Beck, Christian Hierholzer, Hans-Christoph Pape, Sascha Halvachizadeh, Florin Allemann\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13037-025-00447-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Treatment of periprosthetic fractures around the elbow remains a challenge. The goal of this study was to present classification-based treatment strategies of periprosthetic fractures around elbow prosthesis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of published articles in English or German language that investigated classification systems and treatment strategies of fractures around elbow prosthesis without timeframe limitations. Articles without full-text availability were excluded. The search included the following data bases: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science (WoS). The fractures where classified according to the most commonly utilized classification system. Outcome parameters included follow-up time, bone union and range of motion. After deduplication title and abstract screening and full-text analyses were performed by two independent researchers. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROBINS 1) for non-randomized studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This systematic review included 26 articles that included 11 reviews (42.3%), 12 case reports (46.1%) and 3 (11.6%) cohort studies. In total 85 patients were included with a mean age of 68.7 (SD 11.1) years. Most patients were female (n = 61, 73.5%). Fractures were all classified according to Mayo classification. In most reports, type 1 fractures without stem loosening were treated non-operatively, type 2 and 3 fractures without stem loosening with fracture fixation, type 2 fractures with stem loosening with revision arthroplasty. The time to bone union was comparable in fracture fixation versus revision surgery (18.2, SD 9.4 weeks vs. 12.3, SD 5.4 weeks, p = 0.294). The degree/ (or range) of extension was comparable in both groups (9.8, SD 11.2° versus 17.4, SD 16.6°, p = 0.335). The degree of flexion was comparable in both groups (117.5, SD 15.1° versus 127.9, SD 10.3°, p = 0.335).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Treatment of periprosthetic fractures around elbow arthroplasty remains a challenge. The treatment strategy is based on the location of the fracture and the stability of the elbow prosthesis. The lack of high-quality research prohibits a final evidence- based recommendation for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures around the elbow.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient Safety in Surgery\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12487118/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient Safety in Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-025-00447-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Safety in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-025-00447-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:肘关节假体周围骨折的治疗仍然是一个挑战。本研究的目的是提出肘关节假体周围骨折的分类治疗策略。方法:本研究旨在对已发表的英文或德文文献进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,这些文献研究了肘关节假体周围骨折的分类系统和治疗策略,没有时间限制。没有全文的文章被排除在外。检索包括以下数据库:Medline、EMBASE、Cochrane和Web of Science (WoS)。根据最常用的分类系统对裂缝进行分类。结果参数包括随访时间、骨愈合和活动范围。经过重复标题和摘要筛选和全文分析由两个独立的研究人员进行。采用修订Cochrane偏倚风险工具(ROBINS 1)对非随机研究进行偏倚风险评估。结果:本系统综述纳入26篇文章,包括11篇综述(42.3%)、12篇病例报告(46.1%)和3篇队列研究(11.6%)。共纳入85例患者,平均年龄68.7岁(SD 11.1)。大多数患者为女性(n = 61, 73.5%)。骨折均按Mayo分型。在大多数报道中,1型无椎体松脱骨折采用非手术治疗,2型和3型无椎体松脱骨折采用骨折固定,2型有椎体松脱骨折采用翻修关节置换术。骨折固定与翻修手术的骨愈合时间相当(18.2周,SD 9.4周vs. 12.3周,SD 5.4周,p = 0.294)。两组的伸展程度/(或范围)具有可比性(9.8,SD 11.2°对17.4,SD 16.6°,p = 0.335)。两组患者屈曲程度相当(117.5,SD 15.1°vs 127.9, SD 10.3°,p = 0.335)。结论:肘关节置换术周围假体周围骨折的治疗仍然是一个挑战。治疗策略是基于骨折的位置和肘关节假体的稳定性。由于缺乏高质量的研究,对于肘部周围假体周围骨折的治疗,无法给出最终的循证推荐。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Classification-based treatment of periprosthetic fractures around total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Treatment of periprosthetic fractures around the elbow remains a challenge. The goal of this study was to present classification-based treatment strategies of periprosthetic fractures around elbow prosthesis.

Methods: This study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of published articles in English or German language that investigated classification systems and treatment strategies of fractures around elbow prosthesis without timeframe limitations. Articles without full-text availability were excluded. The search included the following data bases: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Web of Science (WoS). The fractures where classified according to the most commonly utilized classification system. Outcome parameters included follow-up time, bone union and range of motion. After deduplication title and abstract screening and full-text analyses were performed by two independent researchers. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROBINS 1) for non-randomized studies.

Results: This systematic review included 26 articles that included 11 reviews (42.3%), 12 case reports (46.1%) and 3 (11.6%) cohort studies. In total 85 patients were included with a mean age of 68.7 (SD 11.1) years. Most patients were female (n = 61, 73.5%). Fractures were all classified according to Mayo classification. In most reports, type 1 fractures without stem loosening were treated non-operatively, type 2 and 3 fractures without stem loosening with fracture fixation, type 2 fractures with stem loosening with revision arthroplasty. The time to bone union was comparable in fracture fixation versus revision surgery (18.2, SD 9.4 weeks vs. 12.3, SD 5.4 weeks, p = 0.294). The degree/ (or range) of extension was comparable in both groups (9.8, SD 11.2° versus 17.4, SD 16.6°, p = 0.335). The degree of flexion was comparable in both groups (117.5, SD 15.1° versus 127.9, SD 10.3°, p = 0.335).

Conclusion: Treatment of periprosthetic fractures around elbow arthroplasty remains a challenge. The treatment strategy is based on the location of the fracture and the stability of the elbow prosthesis. The lack of high-quality research prohibits a final evidence- based recommendation for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures around the elbow.

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
6.80
自引率
8.10%
发文量
37
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
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