Operative treatment of clavicle fractures improves short-term functional outcomes .
Este estudio ha sido identificado como potencialmente de alto impacto.
La métrica de alto impacto de OE, impulsada por la IA, estima la influencia que probablemente tendrá un artículo integrando señales tanto de la revista en la que se publica como del contenido científico del propio artículo.
Desarrollado mediante el procesamiento del lenguaje natural más avanzado, el modelo de Alto Impacto de OE predice con mayor precisión el futuro rendimiento de las citas de un estudio que el factor de impacto de la revista por sí solo.
Esto permite reconocer antes las investigaciones clínicamente significativas y ayuda a los lectores a centrarse en los artículos con más probabilidades de configurar la práctica futura.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(1):32 Acta Orthop. 2012 Feb;83(1):65-73. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2011.652884. Epub 2012 Jan 17This systematic review identified 14 trials (6 randomized controlled trials, 7 controlled clinical trials) that compared the clinical outcomes of operative and non-operative treatment of clavicle fractures in adults. The majority of identified trials focused on the treatment of middle-third clavicle fractures, with one controlled clinical trial assessing treatment outcomes in lateral clavicle fractures. The results from this systematic review indicated that there was moderate evidence (GRADE B) demonstrating operative treatment produced better functional outcomes and less disability at short-term follow-up, had a less common occurrence of delayed union and non-union, and had a similar risk of mild complication as non-operative treatment.
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?
Sí = 1
Incierto = 0,5
No relevante = 0
No = 0
La evaluación de los criterios de información evalúa la transparencia con la que los autores informan de las características metodológicas y del ensayo dentro de la publicación. La evaluación se divide en cinco categorías que se presentan a continuación.
4/4
Introduction
4/4
Accessing Data
2/4
Analysing Data
1/4
Results
2/4
Discussion
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
El Índice de Fragilidad es una herramienta que ayuda en la interpretación de hallazgos significativos, proporcionando una medida de fuerza para un resultado. El Índice de Fragilidad representa el número de eventos consecutivos que es necesario añadir a un resultado dicotómico para que el hallazgo deje de ser significativo. Un número pequeño representa un hallazgo más débil y un número grande un hallazgo más fuerte.
¿Por qué se necesitaba ahora este estudio?
Middle-third clavicle fractures have been traditionally treated using non-operative methods; however, recent research has called this practice into question. A number of clinical trials comparing operative and non-operative treatments have presented results indicating that operative management of these injuries may provide superior short-term functional outcomes, reduce long-term disability, and reduce the risk of non-union or malunion. This systematic review compiled both randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials to assess the effectiveness of operative and non-operative treatment methods for acute clavicle fractures in adults.
¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?
Does operative treatment of acute clavicle fractures provide superior clinical and functional outcomes compared to traditional non-operative treatments?
- A total of 14 trials were identified, 6 randomized controlled trials (631 patients) and 7 controlled clinical trials (559 patients).
- 6 trials comparing operative and non-operative treatment (3 RCT and 3 controlled clinical trials) indicated that there was moderate quality evidence (GRADE B) of considerable effectiveness at 6 weeks in favour of the operative treatment for function (Constant Score) and of low effectiveness at 6 months in favour of the operative treatment.
- 6 trials comparing operative and non-operative treatment (3 RCT and 3 controlled clinical trials) indicated a similar trend in the assessment of DASH outcomes with moderate quality evidence indicating considerable effectiveness at 6 weeks and low effectiveness at 6 months in favour of operative treatment.
- 6 trials comparing operative and non-operative treatment (3 RCT and 3 controlled clinical trials) found moderate quality evidence of similar risk of mild complications in patients treated operatively or non-operatively.
- 5 trials comparing operative treatment with operative treatments (2 RCT and 3 controlled clinical trials) found limited evidence of no difference in pain scores at 3 days between locking plate and non-locking plate, limited evidence of no difference in function (Constant Score) at one year between pin and plate or locking plate and nonlocking plate, and limited evidence of no difference in the complication rate between pin and plate osteosynthesis.
- 1 RCT comparing non-operative treatments found limited evidence of no difference in pain between rucksack bandage and mitella at 2 weeks and 6 months.
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?
The results from this systematic review indicated that there was moderate evidence (GRADE B) demonstrating operative treatment produced better functional outcomes and less disability (Constant and DASH Scores) at short-term follow-up, had a less common occurrence of delayed union and non-union, and had a similar risk of mild complication as non-operative treatment. Additionally, there was limited evidence that there were no differences in functional outcomes, pain (at 3 days) and complication rate between operative techniques.
¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?
This systematic review indicates moderate evidence that operative treatment of middle-third clavicle fractures may provide an improvement in short term functional outcomes and better fracture union rates, however, after 6 months the benefits of operative treatment were small. Additionally, the use of non-operative treatment appears to still provide adequate outcomes. There is still a need for high quality randomized controlled trials to compare operative and non-operative, operative and operative treatments and non-operative and non-operative treatments to strengthen the evidence base with which conclusion can be drawn about optimal treatment methods.
DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDAD
El contenido de esta página tiene únicamente fines informativos y no pretende sustituir el consejo, diagnóstico o tratamiento médico profesional. Si necesita tratamiento médico, busque siempre el consejo de su médico o acuda al servicio de urgencias más cercano. Las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista expresados por las personas sobre el contenido que se encuentra en esta página no reflejan las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista de OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 artículos mensuales GRATIS desbloqueados
