ACE Report Cover
Dynamic compression plates possibly advantageous in treatment of humeral shaft fracture
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
اللغة
Download Download Download
تحميل
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
اقتباس
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ المفضلة
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
اللغة
Download Download Download
تحميل
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
اقتباس
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ المفضلة

TRAUMA

Intramedullary Nail versus Dynamic Compression Plate Fixation in Treating Humeral Shaft Fractures: Grading the Evidence through a Meta-Analysis

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2014;2(7):38 PLoS One. 2013 Dec 16;8(12):e82075. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082075

المؤلفون المساهمون

J Ma D Xing X Ma F Gao Q Wei H Jia R Feng J Yu J Wang

10 studies (8 randomized and 2 quasi-randomized controlled trials) were included in this analysis comparing intramedullary nails and dynamic compression plates in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. The results indicated that while fracture union, functional outcome, and rates of radial nerve injury and infection were similar between treatments, intramedullary nails were associated with higher incidences of intraoperative fracture communition, shoulder impingement, restricted range of motion, implant failure, and re-operation. The strength of these findings were limited by the low quality of evidence, as evaluated using the GRADE system.


تفاصيل تمويل المنشور +
التمويل:
Non-Industry funded
الراعي:
National Natural Science Foundation of China; National Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin; Scientific and Technological Project of Tianjin Public Security Bureau; Key Technologies & Program of Tianjin; Scientific and Technological Project of Tianjin Public Health Bureau
التعارضات:
None disclosed

مخاطر التحيز

9٫5/10

معايير الإبلاغ

16/20

مؤشر الهشاشة

N/A

Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?

Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?

Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?

Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?

Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?

Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?

Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?

Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?

Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?

How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?

نعم = 1

غير مؤكد = 0.5

غير ذي صلة = 0

لا = 0

يقيّم تقييم معايير الإبلاغ الشفافية التي يبلغ بها المؤلفون عن الخصائص المنهجية والتجريبية للتجربة في المنشور. ينقسم التقييم إلى خمس فئات معروضة أدناه.

3/4

Introduction

4/4

Accessing Data

3/4

Analysing Data

4/4

Results

2/4

Discussion

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

مؤشر الهشاشة هو أداة تساعد في تفسير النتائج المهمة، وتوفر مقياسًا لقوة النتيجة. ويمثل مؤشر الهشاشة عدد الأحداث المتتالية التي يجب إضافتها إلى نتيجة ثنائية التفرع لجعل النتيجة غير مهمة. يمثل الرقم الصغير نتيجة أضعف ويمثل الرقم الكبير نتيجة أقوى.

لماذا كانت هناك حاجة لهذه الدراسة الآن؟

Humeral shaft fractures represent a common site of traumatic injury, accounting for up to 3% of all fractures. While most elect to manage these conservatively, surgical intervention is often required in cases of complicated fractures. There are two current standout treatment options: intramedullary nailing or dynamic compression plating. However, there has been continuous debate over whether one option represents a superior method of treatment.

ما هو سؤال البحث الرئيسي؟

Is intramedullary nailing (IMN) or dynamic compression plating (DCP) superior in the surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures?

خصائص الدراسة +
مصدر البيانات:
The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, OVID, the Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar were search for articles published up to February 2013. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry database, Current Controlled Trials, European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, and British Orthopaedic Association Annual Congress were search for unpublished studies. A search was also performed of the reference lists of identified articles.
مصطلحات الفهرس:
The following terms were used for searches: humeral fractures, fracture fixation, intramedullary nails, and bone plates.
اختيار الدراسة:
Studies were selected for inclusion if they were randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs or qRCTs) which compared intramedullary nails and dynamic compression plates for humeral shaft fractures in patients 18 years of age or older. Case reports, and cadaver, model, or biomechanical studies were excluded. Studies with fractures within the proximal or distal ends of the humerus were also excluded. Selection was performed independently by two reviewers (MJX & XD), with disagreement resolved through discussion.
استخراج البيانات:
Data extraction was performed independently by two authors (MJX & XD) using a standardized extraction form, and verified by a third reviewer. Extracted outcomes included the incidence of fracture union, iatrogenic radial nerve injury, intraoperative fracture comminution, infection, shoulder impairment, restriction of shoulder range of motion, implant failure, and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score.
تجميع البيانات:
Data was pooled using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.1). Weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for continuous outcomes, and risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, each with corresponding confidence intervals (95%CI). P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q statistics, with a fixed-effects model used with nonsignificant heterogeneity (P>0.05), and a random-effects model used in cases of significant heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot, Begg's funnel plots and Egger's bias test.

ما هي النتائج المهمة؟

  • A total of 10 studies met the criteria for inclusion; 8 randomized controlled trials and 2 quasi-randomized controlled trials. A total of 448 patients were included among the 10 publications.
  • Meta-analysis of all 10 studies indicated no significant difference between IMN and DCP regarding fracture union (RR 0.96 (95%CI 0.90, 1.02)) (p=0.19).
  • Among 3 studies, there was no significant difference between IMN and DCP in outcome on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (WMD -1.84 (95%CI -3.91, 0.22)) (p=0.08).
  • Pooling of incidence of iatrogenic radial nerve injury from all 10 studies indicated no significant difference between IMN and DCP (RR 0.72 (95%CI 0.35, 1.47)) (p=0.37).
  • Meta-analysis of 6 studies indicated that the incidence of intraoperative communition of the fracture was significantly higher with IMN compared with DCP (RR 3.14 (95%CI 1.02, 9.64)) (p=0.05).
  • Pooled results from 9 included studies demonstrated no significant difference between IMN and DCP regarding incidence of infection (RR 0.48 (95%CI 0.19, 1.24)) (p=0.13).
  • Pooled data from 7 studies indicated a significantly higher incidence of shoulder impingement with IMN compared to DCP (RR 7.32 (95%CI 2.64, 20.29)) (p=0.0001). Meta-analysis of 4 studies indicated a significantly higher risk of restricted shoulder ROM with IMN compared to DCP (RR 9.27 (95%CI 2.22, 38.72)) (p=0.002).
  • The rate of implant failure was significantly higher with IMN compared to DCP (7 studies; RR 3.23 (95%CI 1.15, 9.06)) (p=0.03). The incidence of re-operation was also significantly higher with IMN compared to DCP (9 studies; RR 2.21 (95%CI 1.28, 3.81)) (p=0.005).
  • The overall quality of evidence, as evaluated by the GRADE system, was judged to be very low. All studies were determined to have unclear or high risk of bias regarding allocation concealment (selection bias), participant and personnel blinding (performance bias), and assessor blinding (detection bias).
ما الذي يجب أن أتذكره أكثر؟

Analyses comparing intramedullary nailing and dynamic compression plating for humeral shaft fractures indicated that there was no significant difference between treatments for fracture union, functional outcome on the ASES, and incidences of radial nerve damage and infection. Intramedullary nailing was associated with higher risks of intraoperative communition, shoulder impingement, restricted ROM, implant failure, and re-operation. The low quality of evidence provided by the included studies limited the strength of these findings.

كيف سيؤثر ذلك على رعاية مرضاي؟

The results of this analysis suggest that dynamic compression plating may be more advantageous in surgical intervention of humeral shaft fractures. Due the unclear or high risk of bias associated with the included studies, additional, methodologically sound randomized controlled trials are warranted for future comparisons between intramedullary nails and dynamic compression plates.

تنويه

هذا المحتوى الموجود في هذه الصفحة هو لأغراض إعلامية فقط وليس الغرض منه أن يكون بديلاً عن المشورة الطبية المتخصصة أو التشخيص أو العلاج. إذا كنت بحاجة إلى علاج طبي، اطلب دائمًا مشورة طبيبك أو اذهب إلى أقرب قسم طوارئ إليك. الآراء والمعتقدات ووجهات النظر التي يعبر عنها الأفراد في المحتوى الموجود في هذه الصفحة لا تعكس آراء ومعتقدات ووجهات نظر أورثوإيفيدنس.

0 من 4 مقالات مجانية شهرية غير مقفلة
لقد وصلت إلى الحد الأقصى لمشاهدة 4 من 4 مقالات مجانية هذا الشهر

ادخل إلى OrthoEvidence مقابل 1.99 دولارًا أمريكيًا في الأسبوع.

ابق على اتصال بأحدث الأدلة. قم بالإلغاء في أي وقت.
  • تقييمات نقدية لأحدث التجارب المعشاة ذات الشواهد عالية التأثير والمراجعات المنهجية في مجال جراحة العظام
  • الوصول إلى محتوى المدونة الصوتية OrthoEvidence، بما في ذلك التعاون مع مجلة جراحة العظام والمفاصل، والمقابلات مع الجراحين المعترف بهم دولياً، ومناقشات المائدة المستديرة حول أخبار وموضوعات جراحة العظام
  • الاشتراك في نشرة The Pulse، وهي نشرة إخبارية مبنية على الأدلة مرتين أسبوعيًا مصممة لمساعدتك على اتخاذ قرارات سريرية أفضل
Upgrade
Close Dialog
أهلاً بعودتك!
هل نسيت كلمة المرور؟
ابدأ تجربتك المجانية اليوم!

سيكون حسابك تابعًا لـ
ويتضمن وصولًا مجانيًا إلى OrthoEvidence


أو
هل نسيت كلمة المرور؟

أو
يرجى التحقق من بريدك الإلكتروني

في حالة وجود حساب بعنوان البريد الإلكتروني المقدم، سيتم إرسال بريد إلكتروني لإعادة تعيين كلمة المرور إليك. إذا كنت لا ترى بريدًا إلكترونيًا، يرجى التحقق من مجلد الرسائل غير المرغوب فيها أو البريد غير المرغوب فيه.

لمزيد من المساعدة اتصل بفريق الدعم لدينا.

يرجى تسجيل الدخول لتفعيل هذه الميزة

للوصول إلى هذه الميزة، يجب تسجيل الدخول إلى حساب OrthoEvidence نشط. يرجى تسجيل الدخول أو إنشاء حساب تجريبي مجاني.

ترجمة تقرير ACE

تستخدم OrthoEvidence خدمة ترجمة من طرف ثالث لإتاحة المحتوى بلغات متعددة. يُرجى ملاحظة أنه على الرغم من بذل كل جهد ممكن لضمان الدقة، إلا أن الترجمات قد لا تكون دائمًا مثالية.

كيفية الاستشهاد بهذا ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Dynamic compression plates possibly advantageous in treatment of humeral shaft fracture. OE Journal. 2014;2(7):38. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/dynamic-compression-plates-possibly-advantageous-in-treatment-of-humeral-shaft-fracture

نسخ الاقتباس
يرجى تسجيل الدخول لتفعيل هذه الميزة

للوصول إلى هذه الميزة، يجب تسجيل الدخول إلى حساب OrthoEvidence نشط. يرجى تسجيل الدخول أو إنشاء حساب تجريبي مجاني.

ميزة العضو المميز

للوصول إلى هذه الميزة، يجب عليك تسجيل الدخول إلى حساب OrthoEvidence المميز.

شارك هذا ACE Report