肘部创伤后异位骨化预防方案的比较:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 0.3 Q4 SURGERY
Journal of Hand and Microsurgery Pub Date : 2021-07-01 Epub Date: 2020-12-31 DOI:10.1055/s-0040-1721880
Jeffrey M Henstenburg, Matthew Sherman, Asif M Ilyas
{"title":"肘部创伤后异位骨化预防方案的比较:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Jeffrey M Henstenburg, Matthew Sherman, Asif M Ilyas","doi":"10.1055/s-0040-1721880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>  Heterotopic ossification (HO) can be a potentially serious and devastating complication following traumatic injury to the elbow. HO prophylaxis options include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and radiation therapy (RT) but neither has been proven more effective. The purpose of this review is to compare effectiveness and outcomes between NSAID and RT prophylaxis for HO about the elbow following a traumatic injury. <b>Materials and Methods</b>  We performed a systematic review of PubMed and Cochrane Library for cases of HO prophylaxis following elbow trauma utilizing PRISMA guidelines to determine the most effective form of prophylaxis. Outcomes of interest included recurrence of HO, range of motion (ROM), and Mayo elbow performance index (MEPI). A total of 36 articles and 826 elbows of which 203 received RT and 623 received NSAID were identified and included in the final analysis. <b>Results</b>  Rates of HO formation or recurrence following elbow trauma were similar between radiation and NSAID prophylaxis (15.6% vs. 22.2%, respectively <i>p</i> = 0.457). ROM was similar in flexion and extension arc (109.0 degrees in radiation vs. 112.8 in NSAIDs, <i>p</i> = 0.459) and in pronation and supination arc (118.9 degrees radiation vs. 134.7 degrees NSAIDs, <i>p</i> = 0.322). MEPI scores were 79.19 in the radiation group and 88.82 in the NSAIDs group at the final follow-up. <b>Conclusion</b>  There is no statistical difference in HO development, recurrence, or final ROM between NSAIDs and RT prophylaxis following trauma to the elbow. We recommend the choice of modality based on patient characteristics, cost, and surgeon preference. <b>Level of Evidence</b>  Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":45368,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand and Microsurgery","volume":"13 3","pages":"189-195"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8426039/pdf/10-1055-s-0040-1721880.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Options for Heterotopic Ossification Prophylaxis following Elbow Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey M Henstenburg, Matthew Sherman, Asif M Ilyas\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0040-1721880\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>  Heterotopic ossification (HO) can be a potentially serious and devastating complication following traumatic injury to the elbow. HO prophylaxis options include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and radiation therapy (RT) but neither has been proven more effective. The purpose of this review is to compare effectiveness and outcomes between NSAID and RT prophylaxis for HO about the elbow following a traumatic injury. <b>Materials and Methods</b>  We performed a systematic review of PubMed and Cochrane Library for cases of HO prophylaxis following elbow trauma utilizing PRISMA guidelines to determine the most effective form of prophylaxis. Outcomes of interest included recurrence of HO, range of motion (ROM), and Mayo elbow performance index (MEPI). A total of 36 articles and 826 elbows of which 203 received RT and 623 received NSAID were identified and included in the final analysis. <b>Results</b>  Rates of HO formation or recurrence following elbow trauma were similar between radiation and NSAID prophylaxis (15.6% vs. 22.2%, respectively <i>p</i> = 0.457). ROM was similar in flexion and extension arc (109.0 degrees in radiation vs. 112.8 in NSAIDs, <i>p</i> = 0.459) and in pronation and supination arc (118.9 degrees radiation vs. 134.7 degrees NSAIDs, <i>p</i> = 0.322). MEPI scores were 79.19 in the radiation group and 88.82 in the NSAIDs group at the final follow-up. <b>Conclusion</b>  There is no statistical difference in HO development, recurrence, or final ROM between NSAIDs and RT prophylaxis following trauma to the elbow. We recommend the choice of modality based on patient characteristics, cost, and surgeon preference. <b>Level of Evidence</b>  Level III.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45368,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hand and Microsurgery\",\"volume\":\"13 3\",\"pages\":\"189-195\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8426039/pdf/10-1055-s-0040-1721880.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hand and Microsurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1721880\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/12/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand and Microsurgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1721880","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/12/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言 异位骨化(HO)可能是肘部外伤后的一种严重且具有破坏性的并发症。预防异位骨化的方法包括非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)和放射治疗(RT),但这两种方法均未被证实更为有效。本综述旨在比较非甾体抗炎药和放射治疗对肘关节外伤后 HO 的预防效果和结果。材料和方法 我们利用 PRISMA 指南对 PubMed 和 Cochrane 图书馆中有关肘部外伤后 HO 预防的病例进行了系统性回顾,以确定最有效的预防方式。研究结果包括HO复发率、活动范围(ROM)和梅奥肘关节功能指数(MEPI)。共有36篇文章和826个肘部被确定并纳入最终分析,其中203个肘部接受了RT治疗,623个肘部接受了非甾体抗炎药治疗。结果 放射治疗和非甾体抗炎药预防性治疗后肘关节创伤的HO形成或复发率相似(分别为15.6%和22.2%,P = 0.457)。在屈伸弧度(放射治疗为109.0度,非甾体抗炎药为112.8度,P = 0.459)和上下旋弧度(放射治疗为118.9度,非甾体抗炎药为134.7度,P = 0.322)方面,ROM相似。最终随访时,辐射组的 MEPI 评分为 79.19,非甾体抗炎药组为 88.82。结论 在肘部创伤后,非甾体抗炎药和 RT 预防性治疗在 HO 发生、复发或最终 ROM 方面没有统计学差异。我们建议根据患者特征、成本和外科医生的偏好来选择治疗方式。证据等级 III 级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Options for Heterotopic Ossification Prophylaxis following Elbow Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction  Heterotopic ossification (HO) can be a potentially serious and devastating complication following traumatic injury to the elbow. HO prophylaxis options include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and radiation therapy (RT) but neither has been proven more effective. The purpose of this review is to compare effectiveness and outcomes between NSAID and RT prophylaxis for HO about the elbow following a traumatic injury. Materials and Methods  We performed a systematic review of PubMed and Cochrane Library for cases of HO prophylaxis following elbow trauma utilizing PRISMA guidelines to determine the most effective form of prophylaxis. Outcomes of interest included recurrence of HO, range of motion (ROM), and Mayo elbow performance index (MEPI). A total of 36 articles and 826 elbows of which 203 received RT and 623 received NSAID were identified and included in the final analysis. Results  Rates of HO formation or recurrence following elbow trauma were similar between radiation and NSAID prophylaxis (15.6% vs. 22.2%, respectively p = 0.457). ROM was similar in flexion and extension arc (109.0 degrees in radiation vs. 112.8 in NSAIDs, p = 0.459) and in pronation and supination arc (118.9 degrees radiation vs. 134.7 degrees NSAIDs, p = 0.322). MEPI scores were 79.19 in the radiation group and 88.82 in the NSAIDs group at the final follow-up. Conclusion  There is no statistical difference in HO development, recurrence, or final ROM between NSAIDs and RT prophylaxis following trauma to the elbow. We recommend the choice of modality based on patient characteristics, cost, and surgeon preference. Level of Evidence  Level III.

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
1.00
自引率
25.00%
发文量
39
×
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