Cargando…

Comparison of lateral entry with crossed entry pinning for pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The standard treatment for severe displaced pediatric supracondylar humeral fracture (SCHF) is closed reduction and percutaneous pin fixation. However, controversy persists concerning the optimal pin fixation technique. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy on...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Na, Yuyan, Bai, Rui, Zhao, Zhenqun, Han, Changxu, Kong, Lingyue, Ren, Yizhong, Liu, Wanlin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5883290/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29615086
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0768-3
_version_ 1783311618677932032
author Na, Yuyan
Bai, Rui
Zhao, Zhenqun
Han, Changxu
Kong, Lingyue
Ren, Yizhong
Liu, Wanlin
author_facet Na, Yuyan
Bai, Rui
Zhao, Zhenqun
Han, Changxu
Kong, Lingyue
Ren, Yizhong
Liu, Wanlin
author_sort Na, Yuyan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The standard treatment for severe displaced pediatric supracondylar humeral fracture (SCHF) is closed reduction and percutaneous pin fixation. However, controversy persists concerning the optimal pin fixation technique. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy on the configuration of lateral entry only with crossed entry pin fixation for SCHF, including Gartland type II and type III fractures in children. METHODS: Published literatures, including retrospective studies, prospective studies, and randomized controlled trials, presenting the probability of poor functional consequence of elbow and/or loss of reduction and/or iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury and/or superficial infection and/or cubitus varus were included. Statistical analysis was performed with the Review Manager 5.3 software. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included in the present meta-analysis involving 1163 patients with lateral entry pins and 1059 patients with crossed entry pins. An excellent score of Flynn criteria occurred more commonly in patients who treated with crossed pins than in patients with lateral pins only (RR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.87–0.99; P = 0.03). In accordance with previous systematic review, the incidence of iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury in crossed entry group was significantly more than in lateral entry group with statistical difference (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.14–0.47; P < 0.0001). And, results of subgroup analysis on iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury based on experimental design of retrospective study (RR = 0.23; 95% CI 0.10–0.52; P < 0.0004) and randomized control trial (RR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.10–0.79; P < 0.02) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In consideration of the contradictoriness of lateral entry with two pins only (possible risk of poor functional consequence of elbow) and crossed entry pins (risk of iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury), the recommended strategy for the treatment of SCHF is the lateral entry technique with introducing divergent three pins which can provide a stable configuration and avoid the injury of the ulnar nerve. And additional protective measures for the ulnar nerve should be taken by surgeons that wish for the more stable structure with the crossed entry technique.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5883290
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58832902018-04-10 Comparison of lateral entry with crossed entry pinning for pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: a meta-analysis Na, Yuyan Bai, Rui Zhao, Zhenqun Han, Changxu Kong, Lingyue Ren, Yizhong Liu, Wanlin J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND: The standard treatment for severe displaced pediatric supracondylar humeral fracture (SCHF) is closed reduction and percutaneous pin fixation. However, controversy persists concerning the optimal pin fixation technique. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy on the configuration of lateral entry only with crossed entry pin fixation for SCHF, including Gartland type II and type III fractures in children. METHODS: Published literatures, including retrospective studies, prospective studies, and randomized controlled trials, presenting the probability of poor functional consequence of elbow and/or loss of reduction and/or iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury and/or superficial infection and/or cubitus varus were included. Statistical analysis was performed with the Review Manager 5.3 software. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included in the present meta-analysis involving 1163 patients with lateral entry pins and 1059 patients with crossed entry pins. An excellent score of Flynn criteria occurred more commonly in patients who treated with crossed pins than in patients with lateral pins only (RR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.87–0.99; P = 0.03). In accordance with previous systematic review, the incidence of iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury in crossed entry group was significantly more than in lateral entry group with statistical difference (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.14–0.47; P < 0.0001). And, results of subgroup analysis on iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury based on experimental design of retrospective study (RR = 0.23; 95% CI 0.10–0.52; P < 0.0004) and randomized control trial (RR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.10–0.79; P < 0.02) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In consideration of the contradictoriness of lateral entry with two pins only (possible risk of poor functional consequence of elbow) and crossed entry pins (risk of iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury), the recommended strategy for the treatment of SCHF is the lateral entry technique with introducing divergent three pins which can provide a stable configuration and avoid the injury of the ulnar nerve. And additional protective measures for the ulnar nerve should be taken by surgeons that wish for the more stable structure with the crossed entry technique. BioMed Central 2018-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5883290/ /pubmed/29615086 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0768-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Na, Yuyan
Bai, Rui
Zhao, Zhenqun
Han, Changxu
Kong, Lingyue
Ren, Yizhong
Liu, Wanlin
Comparison of lateral entry with crossed entry pinning for pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: a meta-analysis
title Comparison of lateral entry with crossed entry pinning for pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: a meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of lateral entry with crossed entry pinning for pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: a meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of lateral entry with crossed entry pinning for pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: a meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of lateral entry with crossed entry pinning for pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: a meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of lateral entry with crossed entry pinning for pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: a meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of lateral entry with crossed entry pinning for pediatric supracondylar humeral fractures: a meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5883290/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29615086
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0768-3
work_keys_str_mv AT nayuyan comparisonoflateralentrywithcrossedentrypinningforpediatricsupracondylarhumeralfracturesametaanalysis
AT bairui comparisonoflateralentrywithcrossedentrypinningforpediatricsupracondylarhumeralfracturesametaanalysis
AT zhaozhenqun comparisonoflateralentrywithcrossedentrypinningforpediatricsupracondylarhumeralfracturesametaanalysis
AT hanchangxu comparisonoflateralentrywithcrossedentrypinningforpediatricsupracondylarhumeralfracturesametaanalysis
AT konglingyue comparisonoflateralentrywithcrossedentrypinningforpediatricsupracondylarhumeralfracturesametaanalysis
AT renyizhong comparisonoflateralentrywithcrossedentrypinningforpediatricsupracondylarhumeralfracturesametaanalysis
AT liuwanlin comparisonoflateralentrywithcrossedentrypinningforpediatricsupracondylarhumeralfracturesametaanalysis