ACE Report Cover
Faster union and functional recovery with early mobilization of ulnar fractures
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
言語
Download Download Download
ダウンロード
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
引用
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ お気に入り
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
言語
Download Download Download
ダウンロード
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
引用
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ お気に入り

HAND & WRIST

A systematic review of the non-operative treatment of nightstick fractures of the ulna

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2013;1(16):13 Bone Joint J. 2013 Jul;95-B(7):952-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B7.31669

寄稿者

XZ Cai SG Yan G Giddins

27 studies (1629 fractures) were evaluated in this meta-analysis/systematic review to compare conservative treatments- immobilization, bracing, or early mobilization- for nightstick fractures of the ulna. Early mobilization produced the shortest radiological time to union and lowest mean rate of non-union, while above-or below-elbow immobilization and braces had the longest time of union and higher mean rates of non-union. No differences were seen in the non-union or delayed union rates between early mobilization and the 3 forms of immobilization.


出版資金提供の詳細 +
資金提供:
Non-Industry funded
スポンサー:
Grants from Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Y2110239), National Natural Science Foundation of China (81101345), and Zhejiang Key Program Science and Technology (2011C13033)
コンフリクト:
None disclosed

バイアスのリスク

9.5/10

報告基準

19/20

脆弱性指数

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?

はい = 1

不確実=0.5

無関係 = 0

いいえ = 0

報告基準評価では、著者が出版物内で試験の方法論的特徴や試験特性を報告する際の透明性を評価します。評価は以下の5つのカテゴリーに分類されます。

4/4

Introduction

4/4

Accessing Data

4/4

Analysing Data

4/4

Results

3/4

Discussion

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

Fragility Indexは、重要な所見の解釈を助けるツールで、結果の強さの尺度を提供します。Fragility Indexは、その所見が有意でなくなるために、二項対立の結果に追加する必要がある連続した事象の数を表します。数値が小さいほど弱い所見を表し、数値が大きいほど強い所見を表します。

なぜ今この研究が必要なのですか?

Nightstick fractures are isolated fractures of the ulna. They have high rates of complications, non-unions, delayed unions, residual angulation, and loss of movement. Immobilization in above elbow cast has been the standard treatment for stable fractures, but studies argue that early mobilization might be a better option. Due to the lack of methodological quality in previous studies, this systematic review was conducted on newer material to determine the best conservative treatment for nightstick fractures.

主な研究課題は何ですか?

How do conservative treatments for nightstick fractures of the ulna, such as immobilization, bracing, or early mobilization, compare to one another?

研究の特徴 +
データソース:
A search was conducted by 3 authors (XZC, SGY, GG) on EMBASE, OVID, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trial Grade Center, Google, and Chinese VIP Database up to November 27, 2012 with no language or year restrictions. Additional searches were conducted on the Clinical Trial Registry, Current Controlled Trials, Trials Central, Centre Watch, Google Scholar, orthopaedic association websites, and conference proceedings. Reference lists were also searched.
索引用語:
The search terms were ('Ulnar Fractures' [Mesh]) OR ('Ulna' AND 'Fractures') OR (nightstick fracture)
研究の選択:
Two independent authors searched for randomized controlled trials, non-randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, prospective cohort trials, or retrospective comparative studies reporting conservative treatment of isolated ulnar fractures by use of above- or below-elbow casts, bracing, splints, bandages, slings or nothing. Studies had to report at least one of the following outcomes: clinical/radiological time to union, return to work, the rate of non- and delayed union, the function of the wrist, forearm or elbow, subjective satisfaction, loss of movement, deformity or other complications. Disagreements were resolved through discussion.
データ抽出:
Two independent reviewers extracted patient demographics, fracture morphology, review criteria (follow-up, loss to follow-up, methodology), study design, level of evidence, intervention and assessment of outcome. Original authors were contacted for missing data. Methodological quality of studies was independently evaluated by Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). All Disagreements were evaluated by the K test and resolved by discussion.
データ統合:
Data analysis was conducted by STATA 12.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas). Rates of delayed and nonunion were represented as means. The chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests detected difference with cut-off value for a statistically significant difference of 0.017. Radiological times to union and functional assessment data were not pooled. Begg’s test was used for publication bias, with significance of p </= 0.05.

重要な知見は?

  • 27 studies (1629 fractures) (3 RCTs, 3 prospective cohort, 8 retrospective cohort studies, and 13 case series) were selected by two independent authors.
  • 20 studies reported mean time to radiological union. 6 stated mean times to clinical union. 24 studies reported low or very low rates of delayed or nonunion.
  • Early mobilization had the shortest mean time to radiological union and the lowest mean rate of nonunion, while above- and below-elbow immobilization had the longest mean times to radiological union and the highest mean rate of nonunion.
  • No significant difference was seen between early mobilization and the 3 immobilization methods for nonunion (above-elbow vs early mobilization, p = 0.142; below-elbow vs early mobilization p = 0.456; bracing vs early mobilization, p = 1.0) or in delayed union (above-elbow vs early mobilization, p = 1.0; below-elbow vs early mobilization, p = 0.456; bracing vs early mobilization p = 0.063).
  • 19 studies reported functional assessment. 4 studies with above- and below-elbow casts indicated good or excellent function in < 70% of patients, compared to >90% in all studies with early mobilization.
  • Loss of movement was the most common complication.
  • No significant publication bias was seen in in the nonunion rate for above-elbow immobilization and below elbow immobilization, or in the delayed union rate for above-elbow immobilization (all p>0.05).
最も覚えておくべきことは?

The study indicated that early mobilization had a trend towards faster union rates and better functional recovery, compared to immobilization in treatment of stable night stick fractures. The differences, however, were not significant. There were no observed differences between different types of immobilization.

それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか?

The authors recommend early immobilization as a cheaper and more convenient method, for better results. Because of high publication biases of the studies, further larger randomized controlled trials need to be contributed to the body of evidence.

免責事項

このページに記載されている内容は、情報提供のみを目的としたものであり、専門的な医療アドバイス、診断、治療の代わりとなるものではありません。治療が必要な場合は、必ず医師の診断を仰ぐか、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。このページに記載されている内容に関して個人が表明した意見、信念、見解は、OrthoEvidenceの意見、信念、見解を反映するものではありません。

0の4 月間無料記事のロック解除
今月の無料記事閲覧数が4件に達しました。

週1.99ドルからOrthoEvidenceにアクセスできます。

最新のエビデンスにアクセスしてください。いつでもキャンセルできます。
  • 整形外科における最新のインパクトのあるランダム化比較試験とシステマティックレビューの批判的評価
  • Journal of Bone and Joint Surgeryとのコラボレーション、国際的に著名な外科医へのインタビュー、整形外科ニュースやトピックに関する座談会など、OrthoEvidenceポッドキャストコンテンツへのアクセス
  • 週2回発行されるエビデンスに基づくニュースレター、The Pulseの購読。
Upgrade
Close Dialog
おかえりなさい
パスワードをお忘れですか?
今すぐ無料トライアルを開始

あなたのアカウントは
OrthoEvidenceへの無料アクセスが含まれます。


または
パスワードをお忘れですか?

または
Eメールをご確認ください

入力されたメールアドレスにアカウントが存在する場合、パスワードリセットのメールが送信されます。メールが届かない場合は、迷惑メールフォルダをご確認ください。

その他のサポート サポートチームまでご連絡ください。.

この機能を有効にするにはログインしてください

この機能にアクセスするには、有効なOrthoEvidenceアカウントにログインする必要があります。ログインするか、無料トライアルアカウントを作成してください。

ACEレポートを翻訳

OrthoEvidenceは、多言語でコンテンツにアクセスできるようにするため、第三者の翻訳サービスを利用しています。正確性を確保するためにあらゆる努力をしていますが、翻訳が必ずしも完璧ではない可能性があることにご注意ください。

引用方法 ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Faster union and functional recovery with early mobilization of ulnar fractures. OE Journal. 2013;1(16):13. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/faster-union-and-functional-recovery-with-early-mobilization-of-ulnar-fractures

引用のコピー
この機能を有効にするにはログインしてください

この機能にアクセスするには、有効なOrthoEvidenceアカウントにログインする必要があります。ログインするか、無料トライアルアカウントを作成してください。

プレミアム会員機能

この機能にアクセスするには、OrthoEvidenceのプレミアムアカウントにログインする必要があります。

共有 ACE Report