Cargando…
Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation in the management of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Intramedullary and extramedullary fixation methods are used in the management of subtrochanteric femur fractures. However, whether intramedullary or extramedullary fixation is the primary treatment for subtrochanteric femur fractures in adults remains debatable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Meta-a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4423507/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25960644 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S82119 |
_version_ | 1782370226028937216 |
---|---|
author | Liu, Pengcheng Wu, Xing Shi, Hui Liu, Run Shu, Hexi Gong, JinPeng Yang, Yong Sun, Qi Wu, Jiezhou Nie, Xiaoyang Cai, Ming |
author_facet | Liu, Pengcheng Wu, Xing Shi, Hui Liu, Run Shu, Hexi Gong, JinPeng Yang, Yong Sun, Qi Wu, Jiezhou Nie, Xiaoyang Cai, Ming |
author_sort | Liu, Pengcheng |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Intramedullary and extramedullary fixation methods are used in the management of subtrochanteric femur fractures. However, whether intramedullary or extramedullary fixation is the primary treatment for subtrochanteric femur fractures in adults remains debatable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Meta-analyses of prospective studies, level I. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Cochrane library, Embase, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases were searched separately for all relevant studies published before January 1, 2015. No language restriction was applied. Prospective randomized controlled trials that compared intramedullary or extramedullary internal fixation to repair subtrochanteric femur fractures in adults were included. We determined intraoperative data, postoperative complications, fracture fixation complications, wound infection, hospital stay days, and final outcome measures to assess the relative effects of different internal fixation methods for the treatment of subtrochanteric femur fractures in adults. RESULTS: Six studies were included in our meta-analysis. The relative risks (RRs) of revision rate was 83% lower (RR, 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05 to 0.60; P=0.006), fixation failure rate was 64% lower (RR, 0.36, 95% CI, 0.12 to 1.08; P=0.07), non-union rate was 77% lower (RR, 0.23, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.81; P=0.02) in the intramedullary group compared with the extramedullary group. No significant differences were found between the intramedullary group and extramedullary group for intraoperative data, postoperative complications, wound infection, hospital stay days or final outcome measures. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggests that there was no significant difference in intraoperative data, postoperative complications, wound infection, hospital stay days or final outcome measures between intramedullary and extramedullary internal fixation. However, a significant decrease occurred in the rate of fracture fixation complications for patients treated with intramedullary internal fixation, especially in elderly patients. Some differences were not significant, but the treatment of elderly subtrochanteric femur fractures using intramedullary internal fixation is recommended. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4423507 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Dove Medical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44235072015-05-08 Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation in the management of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a meta-analysis Liu, Pengcheng Wu, Xing Shi, Hui Liu, Run Shu, Hexi Gong, JinPeng Yang, Yong Sun, Qi Wu, Jiezhou Nie, Xiaoyang Cai, Ming Clin Interv Aging Original Research BACKGROUND: Intramedullary and extramedullary fixation methods are used in the management of subtrochanteric femur fractures. However, whether intramedullary or extramedullary fixation is the primary treatment for subtrochanteric femur fractures in adults remains debatable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Meta-analyses of prospective studies, level I. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Cochrane library, Embase, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases were searched separately for all relevant studies published before January 1, 2015. No language restriction was applied. Prospective randomized controlled trials that compared intramedullary or extramedullary internal fixation to repair subtrochanteric femur fractures in adults were included. We determined intraoperative data, postoperative complications, fracture fixation complications, wound infection, hospital stay days, and final outcome measures to assess the relative effects of different internal fixation methods for the treatment of subtrochanteric femur fractures in adults. RESULTS: Six studies were included in our meta-analysis. The relative risks (RRs) of revision rate was 83% lower (RR, 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05 to 0.60; P=0.006), fixation failure rate was 64% lower (RR, 0.36, 95% CI, 0.12 to 1.08; P=0.07), non-union rate was 77% lower (RR, 0.23, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.81; P=0.02) in the intramedullary group compared with the extramedullary group. No significant differences were found between the intramedullary group and extramedullary group for intraoperative data, postoperative complications, wound infection, hospital stay days or final outcome measures. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggests that there was no significant difference in intraoperative data, postoperative complications, wound infection, hospital stay days or final outcome measures between intramedullary and extramedullary internal fixation. However, a significant decrease occurred in the rate of fracture fixation complications for patients treated with intramedullary internal fixation, especially in elderly patients. Some differences were not significant, but the treatment of elderly subtrochanteric femur fractures using intramedullary internal fixation is recommended. Dove Medical Press 2015-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC4423507/ /pubmed/25960644 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S82119 Text en © 2015 Liu et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Liu, Pengcheng Wu, Xing Shi, Hui Liu, Run Shu, Hexi Gong, JinPeng Yang, Yong Sun, Qi Wu, Jiezhou Nie, Xiaoyang Cai, Ming Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation in the management of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a meta-analysis |
title | Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation in the management of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a meta-analysis |
title_full | Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation in the management of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation in the management of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation in the management of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a meta-analysis |
title_short | Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation in the management of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a meta-analysis |
title_sort | intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation in the management of subtrochanteric femur fractures: a meta-analysis |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4423507/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25960644 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S82119 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liupengcheng intramedullaryversusextramedullaryfixationinthemanagementofsubtrochantericfemurfracturesametaanalysis AT wuxing intramedullaryversusextramedullaryfixationinthemanagementofsubtrochantericfemurfracturesametaanalysis AT shihui intramedullaryversusextramedullaryfixationinthemanagementofsubtrochantericfemurfracturesametaanalysis AT liurun intramedullaryversusextramedullaryfixationinthemanagementofsubtrochantericfemurfracturesametaanalysis AT shuhexi intramedullaryversusextramedullaryfixationinthemanagementofsubtrochantericfemurfracturesametaanalysis AT gongjinpeng intramedullaryversusextramedullaryfixationinthemanagementofsubtrochantericfemurfracturesametaanalysis AT yangyong intramedullaryversusextramedullaryfixationinthemanagementofsubtrochantericfemurfracturesametaanalysis AT sunqi intramedullaryversusextramedullaryfixationinthemanagementofsubtrochantericfemurfracturesametaanalysis AT wujiezhou intramedullaryversusextramedullaryfixationinthemanagementofsubtrochantericfemurfracturesametaanalysis AT niexiaoyang intramedullaryversusextramedullaryfixationinthemanagementofsubtrochantericfemurfracturesametaanalysis AT caiming intramedullaryversusextramedullaryfixationinthemanagementofsubtrochantericfemurfracturesametaanalysis |