Search

Background: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the merits and drawbacks between reamed intramedullary nailing (RIN) and unreamed intramedullary nailing (URIN) among adults.Methods: We comprehensively searched PubMed, MEDLINE database through the PubMed search engine, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Embase, VIPI (Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals), and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) from inception to March 2020. Outcomes of interest included nonunion rates, implant failure rates, secondary procedure rates, blood loss, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) rates, and pulmonary complications rates.Results: Eight randomized controlled trials were included. The result of nonunion rates shows that the nonunion rate is significantly lower in the RIN group (RR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.09-0.48, Z = 3.63, P = 0.0003). There were no significant differences for the risk of implant failure rates (RR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.18-1.69, Z = 1.04, P = 0.30). The secondary procedure rates were significantly lower in the RIN group (RR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.12-0.66, Z = 2.91, P = 0.004). The result shows that the blood loss of URIN group is significantly lower (RR = 145.52, 95% CI = 39.68-251.36, Z = 2.69, P = 0.007). The result shows that there was no significant difference in the ARDS rates (RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 0.37-6.29, Z = 0.59, P = 0.55) and the pulmonary complications rates between RIN group and URIN group (RR = 1.59, 95% CI = 0.61-4.17, Z = 0.94, P = 0.35).Conclusions: Reamed intramedullary nailing would lead to lower nonunion rate, secondary procedure rate and more blood loss. Unreamed intramedullary nailing is related to a higher nonunion rate, secondary procedure rate and less blood loss. No significant difference is found in implant failure rate, ARDS rate and pulmonary complication rate between the two groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early femoral neck shortening after femoral neck system (FNS) fixation for displaced femoral neck fractures can occur in 22.3%-39.1% of cases, leading to decreased hip joint function. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of using an anti-shortening screw (ASS) in FNS fixation to prevent postoperative femoral neck shortening in displaced femoral neck fractures., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 106 cases of displaced femoral neck fractures treated with FNS at the Hospital from April 2020 to April 2023. Patients were divided into two groups based on the use of an ASS: the traditional group and the ASS group, each consisting of 53 cases. The ASS group was age-matched with the traditional group treated during the same period without an ASS. The study variables included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking and drinking history, injury mechanism, side of injury, fracture type, surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, Harris Hip Score (HHS) at the final follow-up, radiographic assessment (femoral neck shortening), and complications (infection, femoral head necrosis, nonunion, and secondary surgery). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software, with continuous and categorical variables analyzed using appropriate parametric (t-test) and nonparametric (Mann-Whitney U test) tests, and chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, respectively. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant., Results: There were no significant differences in background characteristics between the traditional and ASS groups. The shortening distance at postoperative day 1 did not differ significantly between the two groups (0 vs. 0 mm, p = 0.120). However, at 1, 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively, the femoral neck shortening in the ASS group was significantly less than that in the traditional group (1 month: 2.3 vs. 3.1 mm, p = 0.007; 3 months: 2.6 vs. 3.5 mm, p = 0.005; 1 year: 2.6 vs. 3.5 mm, p = 0.002). The ASS group also had a significantly lower shortening distance during the fracture healing process (0.9 vs. 2.7 mm, p = 0.005). The incidence of moderate to severe shortening (≥5 mm) at 1 year postoperatively was lower in the ASS group compared with the traditional group (15.1% vs. 37.7%, p = 0.001). The ASS group had a longer surgical time (63.0 ± 13.4 vs. 73.0 ± 23.2 min, p = 0.008) and a higher HHS (90.7 vs. 94.8, p = 0.008). There was no significant difference in fracture healing time or postoperative complications between the two groups. The traditional group had 3.8% cutouts, 7.5% nonunions, 5.7% avascular necrosis, and 7.5% secondary hip replacements. The ASS group saw 0% cutouts, 1.9% nonunions, 3.8% avascular necrosis, and 3.8% hip replacements. No significant differences in complication rates (p > 0.05)., Conclusion: The use of an ASS in FNS fixation for displaced femoral neck fractures can reduce the degree of postoperative shortening and improve hip joint function., (© 2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Objective: This meta-analysis study aims to determine the efficacy and safety of surgical and conservative treatments for distal radius fractures (DRFs) in adults., Methods: Reports of randomized controlled trials were retrieved from the Web of Science, Pubmed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Medline, Ovid, and BIOSIS for studies that met the eligibility criteria. The search was limited to human subjects and had no language limits. The search strategy was check by two independent reviewers. If there was any dispute, a third reviewer was consulted. Primary outcomes were: (1) the active wrist range of motion including flexion, extension, pronation, supination, radial, and ulnar deviation; (2) the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score; and (3) radiological outcomes including radial inclination and ulnar variance. Secondary outcomes were the number of complications including non-infectious and infectious. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool provided by the Cochrane Review Manager 5.3., Results: A total of 10 randomized controlled trials were included. The meta-analysis detected no statistically significant difference in pooled data for complications not included infection (MD 0.64, CI: 0.33 to 1.23, Z=1.34, p=0.18). Surgical treatment achieved a better range of motion (MD 3.76, CI: 1.58 to 5.95, Z=3.37, p=0.0007), DASH score (MD -6.57, CI: -9.08 to -4.06, Z=5.12, p<0.00001), and radiographic outcomes (MD 3.75, CI: 2.75 to 4.74, Z=7.37, p<0.00001) compared with conservative treatment. In contrast, the conservative treatment achieved less infection rate compared with surgical treatment (MD 4.09, CI: 1.18 to 14.21, Z=2.21, p=0.03)., Conclusion: Findings of this study reveal that when compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment can ensure better clinical and radiological results for the treatment of DRFs in adults. Although similar complication rates can be encountered with both treatment modalities, it should be taken into account that the rate of infection may be higher in surgical treatment., Level of Evidence: Level I, Therapeutic Study.