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
Sprache
Download Download Download
Herunterladen
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Zitieren
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoriten
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Sprache
Download Download Download
Herunterladen
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Zitieren
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoriten

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

Mitwirkende Autoren

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.


Details zur Finanzierung der Veröffentlichung +
Finanzierung:
Non-Industry funded
Sponsor:
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
Interessenkonflikte:
None disclosed

Risiko der Voreingenommenheit

9,5/10

Kriterien für die Berichterstattung

16/20

Fragilitäts-Index

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?

Ja = 1

Ungewiss = 0.5

Nicht relevant = 0

Nein = 0

Die Bewertung der Berichtskriterien bewertet die Transparenz, mit der die Autoren die methodischen und studienspezifischen Merkmale der Studie in der Veröffentlichung angeben. Die Bewertung ist in fünf Kategorien unterteilt, die im Folgenden vorgestellt werden.

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

Der Fragilitätsindex ist ein Instrument, das bei der Interpretation signifikanter Ergebnisse hilft und ein Maß für die Stärke eines Ergebnisses liefert. Der Fragilitätsindex gibt die Anzahl der aufeinanderfolgenden Ereignisse an, die zu einem dichotomen Ergebnis hinzugefügt werden müssen, damit das Ergebnis nicht mehr signifikant ist. Eine kleine Zahl steht für ein schwächeres Ergebnis und eine große Zahl für ein stärkeres Ergebnis.

Warum wurde diese Studie jetzt benötigt?

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.

Was war die wichtigste Forschungsfrage?

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

Merkmale der Studie +
Datenquelle:
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.
Index Begriffe:
The following terms were used for searches: humeral fractures, fracture fixation, intramedullary nails, and bone plates.
Auswahl der Studie:
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.
Datenextraktion:
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.
Daten-Synthese:
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.

Was waren die wichtigsten Ergebnisse?

  • 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).
Was sollte ich mir besonders merken?

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.

Wie wird sich dies auf die Behandlung meiner Patienten auswirken?

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.

HAFTUNGSAUSSCHLUSS

Der Inhalt dieser Seite dient nur zu Informationszwecken und ist nicht als Ersatz für professionelle medizinische Beratung, Diagnose oder Behandlung gedacht. Wenn Sie eine medizinische Behandlung benötigen, wenden Sie sich immer an Ihren Arzt oder suchen Sie die nächstgelegene Notaufnahme auf. Die Meinungen, Überzeugungen und Standpunkte, die von den Personen auf dieser Seite geäußert werden, spiegeln nicht die Meinungen, Überzeugungen und Standpunkte von OrthoEvidence wider.

0 von 4 monatliche KOSTENLOSE Artikel freigeschaltet
Sie haben Ihr Limit von 4 kostenlosen Artikeln in diesem Monat erreicht

Zugang zu OrthoEvidence für nur $1,99 pro Woche.

Bleiben Sie auf dem Laufenden mit den neuesten Beweisen. Jederzeit kündbar.
  • Kritische Beurteilungen der neuesten, hochwirksamen randomisierten kontrollierten Studien und systematischen Übersichten in der Orthopädie
  • Zugang zu OrthoEvidence-Podcast-Inhalten, einschließlich Kooperationen mit dem Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Interviews mit international anerkannten Chirurgen und Diskussionsrunden zu orthopädischen Neuigkeiten und Themen
  • Abonnement von The Pulse, einem zweimal wöchentlich erscheinenden evidenzbasierten Newsletter, der Ihnen helfen soll, bessere klinische Entscheidungen zu treffen
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Willkommen zurück!
Passwort vergessen?
Starten Sie Ihre KOSTENLOSE Testversion noch heute!

Ihr Konto ist verbunden mit
und umfasst den kostenlosen Zugang zu OrthoEvidence


ODER
Passwort vergessen?

ODER
Bitte überprüfen Sie Ihre E-Mail

Wenn ein Konto mit der angegebenen E-Mail-Adresse existiert, wird Ihnen eine E-Mail zum Zurücksetzen des Passworts zugesandt. Wenn Sie keine E-Mail sehen, überprüfen Sie bitte Ihren Spam- oder Junk-Ordner.

Für weitere Hilfe, kontaktieren Sie unser Support-Team.

Bitte melden Sie sich an, um diese Funktion zu aktivieren

Um auf diese Funktion zugreifen zu können, müssen Sie bei einem aktiven OrthoEvidence-Konto angemeldet sein. Bitte melden Sie sich an oder erstellen Sie ein KOSTENLOSES Testkonto.

Übersetzen ACE Report

OrthoEvidence nutzt einen externen Übersetzungsdienst, um Inhalte in mehreren Sprachen zugänglich zu machen. Bitte beachten Sie, dass trotz aller Bemühungen um Genauigkeit die Übersetzungen nicht immer perfekt sind.

Wie man dies zitiert 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

Zitat kopieren
Bitte melden Sie sich an, um diese Funktion zu aktivieren

Um auf diese Funktion zugreifen zu können, müssen Sie bei einem aktiven OrthoEvidence-Konto angemeldet sein. Bitte melden Sie sich an oder erstellen Sie ein KOSTENLOSES Testkonto.

Premium-Mitglied-Funktion

Um auf diese Funktion zugreifen zu können, müssen Sie bei einem Premium-Konto von OrthoEvidence angemeldet sein.

Teilen Sie dies ACE Report