Operative treatment of clavicle fractures improves short-term functional outcomes .
Cette étude a été identifiée comme étant potentiellement à fort impact.
L'indicateur High Impact de l'ENP, basé sur l'IA, estime l'influence qu'un article est susceptible d'avoir en intégrant des signaux provenant à la fois de la revue dans laquelle il est publié et du contenu scientifique de l'article lui-même.
Développé à l'aide d'un traitement du langage naturel de pointe, le modèle High Impact de l'ENP prédit avec plus de précision les futures citations d'une étude que le seul facteur d'impact de la revue.
Cela permet d'identifier plus tôt les recherches cliniquement significatives et aide les lecteurs à se concentrer sur les articles les plus susceptibles d'influencer les pratiques futures.
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?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
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
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
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.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
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.
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
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.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
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.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
