Short versus long cephalomedullary nails for intertrochanteric femur fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

短髓内钉与长髓内钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的比较:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析

阅读:2

Abstract

PURPOSE: We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of short cephalomedullary nails(CMN) versus long CMN in patients with intertrochanteric femur fractures(IFFs). METHODS: The PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for relevant publications until July 2024. All randomized controlled studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of short CMN versus long CMN in patients with IFFs were included. We estimated the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies with 658 patients were included in this analysis. There was no significant difference between the short CMN group and the long CMN group in Harris hip score, mortality within 1-year, overall complication rates, or reoperation rates. However, durations of surgery were significantly lower in the short CMN group compared to the long CMN group (MD: ‒21.83 minutes, 95% CI: ‒27.54 minutes, ‒16.13 minutes), along with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (MD: ‒136.70 mL, 95% CI: ‒139.06 mL, ‒134.34 mL) and tip-apex distance (MD: ‒0.47 cm, 95% CI: ‒0.63 cm, ‒0.31 cm). There was also no significant difference in peri-implant fracture or lengths of hospital stays. CONCLUSIONS: Short CMN are associated with shorter duration of surgery, reduced tip-apex distance, and lower intraoperative blood loss compared to long CMN for the fixation of IFFs. However, there were no significant differences in functional outcomes, overall complication rates, reoperation rates, mortality within one year, peri-implant fracture, or lengths of hospital stays.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。