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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Pengcheng, Wu, Xing, Shi, Hui, Liu, Run, Shu, Hexi, Gong, JinPeng, Yang, Yong, Sun, Qi, Wu, Jiezhou, Nie, Xiaoyang, Cai, Ming
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