Sandeep Kumar Nema, Jose Austine, Premkumar Ramasubramani, Ruchin Agrawal
{"title":"超声引导下操作不能防止桡骨远端骨折(Colles)中基于标志性骨折复位的错位。","authors":"Sandeep Kumar Nema, Jose Austine, Premkumar Ramasubramani, Ruchin Agrawal","doi":"10.4103/jets.jets_157_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This systematic review aims to determine the relative risk of distal radius (Colles) fracture (DRF) malalignment between ultrasound (USG)-guided and conventional/landmark guided/blind manipulation and reduction (M&R).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched 3932 records from major electronic bibliographic databases on USG-guided manipulation of DRF. Studies with randomized, quasi-randomized, and cross-sectional study designs meeting the inclusion criteria were included in this review. USG and landmark-guided DRF manipulations were named cases and controls, respectively. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen and nine studies were analysed for qualitative and quantitative analysis in this review. Nine hundred fifty-one DRF patients (475 cases and 476 controls) from 9 studies with mean ages of 51.52 ± 11.86 (22-92) and 55.82 ± 11.28 (18-98) years for cases and controls were pooled for this review. The pooled relative risk estimate from the studies included in the meta-analysis was 0.90 (0.74-1.09). There was a 10% decrease in the risk of malalignment with USG than the landmark guided M&R of DRF. The <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> statistic estimated a heterogeneity of 83%. Sensitivity analysis revealed a relative risk of 1.00 (0.96-1.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The USG-guided manipulation does not prevent malalignment over the landmark-based manipulation of DRF. The risk of bias across the included studies and heterogeneity of 83% mandates further unbiased, high-quality studies to verify the findings of this review.</p>","PeriodicalId":15692,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10424739/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasound-Guided Manipulation does not Prevent Malalignment Over Landmark-Based Fracture Reduction in Distal Radius Fracture (Colles).\",\"authors\":\"Sandeep Kumar Nema, Jose Austine, Premkumar Ramasubramani, Ruchin Agrawal\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jets.jets_157_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This systematic review aims to determine the relative risk of distal radius (Colles) fracture (DRF) malalignment between ultrasound (USG)-guided and conventional/landmark guided/blind manipulation and reduction (M&R).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched 3932 records from major electronic bibliographic databases on USG-guided manipulation of DRF. Studies with randomized, quasi-randomized, and cross-sectional study designs meeting the inclusion criteria were included in this review. USG and landmark-guided DRF manipulations were named cases and controls, respectively. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen and nine studies were analysed for qualitative and quantitative analysis in this review. Nine hundred fifty-one DRF patients (475 cases and 476 controls) from 9 studies with mean ages of 51.52 ± 11.86 (22-92) and 55.82 ± 11.28 (18-98) years for cases and controls were pooled for this review. The pooled relative risk estimate from the studies included in the meta-analysis was 0.90 (0.74-1.09). There was a 10% decrease in the risk of malalignment with USG than the landmark guided M&R of DRF. The <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> statistic estimated a heterogeneity of 83%. Sensitivity analysis revealed a relative risk of 1.00 (0.96-1.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The USG-guided manipulation does not prevent malalignment over the landmark-based manipulation of DRF. The risk of bias across the included studies and heterogeneity of 83% mandates further unbiased, high-quality studies to verify the findings of this review.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15692,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10424739/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jets.jets_157_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jets.jets_157_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ultrasound-Guided Manipulation does not Prevent Malalignment Over Landmark-Based Fracture Reduction in Distal Radius Fracture (Colles).
Introduction: This systematic review aims to determine the relative risk of distal radius (Colles) fracture (DRF) malalignment between ultrasound (USG)-guided and conventional/landmark guided/blind manipulation and reduction (M&R).
Methods: We searched 3932 records from major electronic bibliographic databases on USG-guided manipulation of DRF. Studies with randomized, quasi-randomized, and cross-sectional study designs meeting the inclusion criteria were included in this review. USG and landmark-guided DRF manipulations were named cases and controls, respectively. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies.
Results: Thirteen and nine studies were analysed for qualitative and quantitative analysis in this review. Nine hundred fifty-one DRF patients (475 cases and 476 controls) from 9 studies with mean ages of 51.52 ± 11.86 (22-92) and 55.82 ± 11.28 (18-98) years for cases and controls were pooled for this review. The pooled relative risk estimate from the studies included in the meta-analysis was 0.90 (0.74-1.09). There was a 10% decrease in the risk of malalignment with USG than the landmark guided M&R of DRF. The I2 statistic estimated a heterogeneity of 83%. Sensitivity analysis revealed a relative risk of 1.00 (0.96-1.05).
Conclusion: The USG-guided manipulation does not prevent malalignment over the landmark-based manipulation of DRF. The risk of bias across the included studies and heterogeneity of 83% mandates further unbiased, high-quality studies to verify the findings of this review.