Open Reduction with Internal Fixation (ORIF) versus Hybrid Circular External Fixator (HCEF) as the Treatment of Choice for Bicondylar Tibial Plateau Fractures : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI:10.1177/2325967120s00042
I. Susila, S. Savio, C. Dharmayuda
{"title":"Open Reduction with Internal Fixation (ORIF) versus Hybrid Circular External Fixator (HCEF) as the Treatment of Choice for Bicondylar Tibial Plateau Fractures : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"I. Susila, S. Savio, C. Dharmayuda","doi":"10.1177/2325967120s00042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bicondylar Tibial Plateu Fractures (BTPF) present a challenge in management due to the involvement of articular surface, resulting in high complication rate. This study aims to compare two treatments, Open Reduction with Internal Fixation (ORIF) and Hybrid Circular External Fixation (HCEF) as the choice of surgical procedure for BTPF that still controversial until now. Discussion: BTPF is a complex and challenging injury associated with severe bone and soft tissue damage which may result in severe morbidity and chronic complications. The minimally invasive procedure offered by HCEF preserves soft tissue and offers lower rate of deep infection. Furthermore, HCEF should be more considered as the treatment of choice for BTPF due to its shorter hospital LoS which may minimalize nosocomial infection risks and costs. Materials and Methods: A systematic review using Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Google Scholar was conducted based on PRISMA guideline. Inclusion criteria were studies comparing HCEF and ORIF of BTPF. Studies of only one surgical technique modality, Schatzker types I-IV Tibial Plateu Fractures, and case reports were excluded, resulting in six included studies. For the meta-analysis of hospital length of stay (LoS), random effect model was used for continuous outcomes using Review Manager 5.3. Results: Most common complications are nerve injuries, infection, and non/delayed union. Blood loss was higher in ORIF group, while both procedures have similar operation time and functional outcome. The mean hospital LoS for ORIF (n = 60) was 18.45, as for HCEF (n =63) was 8.325. There was significant difference in terms of hospital LoS between ORIF and HCEF (P =0.003). Conclusion: ORIF and HCEF carry similar operation time, functional outcome, union rate, and complication, though HCEF is more beneficial in terms of blood loss and hospital LoS.","PeriodicalId":19646,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2325967120s00042","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967120s00042","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Bicondylar Tibial Plateu Fractures (BTPF) present a challenge in management due to the involvement of articular surface, resulting in high complication rate. This study aims to compare two treatments, Open Reduction with Internal Fixation (ORIF) and Hybrid Circular External Fixation (HCEF) as the choice of surgical procedure for BTPF that still controversial until now. Discussion: BTPF is a complex and challenging injury associated with severe bone and soft tissue damage which may result in severe morbidity and chronic complications. The minimally invasive procedure offered by HCEF preserves soft tissue and offers lower rate of deep infection. Furthermore, HCEF should be more considered as the treatment of choice for BTPF due to its shorter hospital LoS which may minimalize nosocomial infection risks and costs. Materials and Methods: A systematic review using Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Google Scholar was conducted based on PRISMA guideline. Inclusion criteria were studies comparing HCEF and ORIF of BTPF. Studies of only one surgical technique modality, Schatzker types I-IV Tibial Plateu Fractures, and case reports were excluded, resulting in six included studies. For the meta-analysis of hospital length of stay (LoS), random effect model was used for continuous outcomes using Review Manager 5.3. Results: Most common complications are nerve injuries, infection, and non/delayed union. Blood loss was higher in ORIF group, while both procedures have similar operation time and functional outcome. The mean hospital LoS for ORIF (n = 60) was 18.45, as for HCEF (n =63) was 8.325. There was significant difference in terms of hospital LoS between ORIF and HCEF (P =0.003). Conclusion: ORIF and HCEF carry similar operation time, functional outcome, union rate, and complication, though HCEF is more beneficial in terms of blood loss and hospital LoS.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
切开复位内固定(ORIF)与混合圆形外固定架(HCEF)作为胫骨平台双髁骨折的治疗选择:系统回顾和荟萃分析
胫骨平台双髁骨折(BTPF)由于涉及关节面,导致并发症发生率高,在治疗方面面临挑战。本研究旨在比较两种治疗方法,开放复位内固定术(ORIF)和混合环形外固定术(HCEF)作为BTPF的手术选择,这两种方法至今仍有争议。讨论:BTPF是一种复杂且具有挑战性的损伤,与严重的骨和软组织损伤有关,可能导致严重的发病率和慢性并发症。HCEF提供的微创手术保留了软组织,并降低了深度感染率。此外,HCEF应更多地被视为BTPF的首选治疗方法,因为它的住院LoS较短,可以将医院感染风险和成本降至最低。材料和方法:根据PRISMA指南,使用Cochrane Library、PubMed和Google Scholar进行系统综述。纳入标准是比较BTPF的HCEF和ORIF的研究。仅排除了一种外科技术模式(Schatzker I-IV型胫骨平台骨折)的研究和病例报告,导致六项纳入研究。对于住院时间(LoS)的荟萃分析,使用Review Manager 5.3对连续结果使用随机效应模型。结果:最常见的并发症是神经损伤、感染和未/延迟愈合。ORIF组的失血量更高,而两种手术的手术时间和功能结果相似。ORIF(n=60)的平均住院LoS为18.45,HCEF(n=63)为8.325。结论:ORIF和HCEF的手术时间、功能结果、愈合率和并发症相似,但HCEF在失血和住院LoS方面更有利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
876
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (OJSM), developed by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), is a global, peer-reviewed, open access journal that combines the interests of researchers and clinical practitioners across orthopaedic sports medicine, arthroscopy, and knee arthroplasty. Topics include original research in the areas of: -Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, including surgical and nonsurgical treatment of orthopaedic sports injuries -Arthroscopic Surgery (Shoulder/Elbow/Wrist/Hip/Knee/Ankle/Foot) -Relevant translational research -Sports traumatology/epidemiology -Knee and shoulder arthroplasty The OJSM also publishes relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Evaluating Elastographic Tendon Stiffness as a Predictor of Return to Work and Sports After Primary Rotator Cuff Repair. Investigating the Effect of Elevation and Sex-Based Differences on Shoulder Proprioceptive Accuracy. Cephalomedullary Nail Fixation for Prophylactic Treatment of Incomplete Femoral Neck Stress Fractures in Athletes. Development and Validation of a Shorthand Knee MRI Atlas for Bone Age Estimation in the Korean Population. Systematic Video Analysis of ACL Injuries in Male Professional English Soccer Players: A Study of 124 Cases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1