Mohammed S Shaheen, Venla-Linnea Karjalainen, Ashruth Reddy, Teemu Karjalainen, Kevin C Chung
{"title":"杜普伊特伦挛缩症治疗的有效性和安全性:使用 GRADE 方法进行系统回顾和元分析。","authors":"Mohammed S Shaheen, Venla-Linnea Karjalainen, Ashruth Reddy, Teemu Karjalainen, Kevin C Chung","doi":"10.1097/PRS.0000000000011816","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is currently no consensus on the optimal treatment for Dupuytren contracture. Prior meta-analyses have been limited by suboptimal data synthesis methodologies. We conducted an updated evidence review comparing the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous needle fasciotomy (PNF), collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH), and limited fasciectomy (LF) using the GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes following PNF, CCH, and LF for Dupuytren contracture treatment. Outcomes of interest included residual contracture, recurrence rate, hand function, pain, global satisfaction, and adverse events. Time points included 3-months, 1-year, and 2-3 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen publications (1,010 patients) were included. High to moderate certainty evidence showed no clinically important difference in long-term contracture reduction (PNF vs. LF (mean difference (MD): 7.6°; 95% CI: 1.8°-13.4°), CCH vs. LF (MD: 4.8°; 95% CI: -1.3°-10.9°)). Moderate certainty evidence indicated that LF provides the lowest risk of long-term recurrence (PNF vs. LF (relative risk (RR): 12.3; 95% CI: 1.6-92.4), CCH vs. LF (RR: 9.5; 95% CI 1.2-73.4)), LF has a higher risk of serious adverse events than PNF (RR: 0.5; 95% CI 0.3-0.9), and CCH has a higher risk of overall adverse events than PNF (RR: 4.8; 95% CI 2.9-7.0).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CCH, PNF, and LF are equally effective in long-term contracture reduction. However, LF yields more durable results at a higher risk of rare but serious adverse events. Current evidence suggests the use of PNF over CCH. However, ultimate treatment decisions should be tailored to individual patient preferences.</p>","PeriodicalId":20128,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness and Safety of Dupuytren Contracture Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Using the GRADE Approach.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammed S Shaheen, Venla-Linnea Karjalainen, Ashruth Reddy, Teemu Karjalainen, Kevin C Chung\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PRS.0000000000011816\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is currently no consensus on the optimal treatment for Dupuytren contracture. Prior meta-analyses have been limited by suboptimal data synthesis methodologies. We conducted an updated evidence review comparing the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous needle fasciotomy (PNF), collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH), and limited fasciectomy (LF) using the GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes following PNF, CCH, and LF for Dupuytren contracture treatment. Outcomes of interest included residual contracture, recurrence rate, hand function, pain, global satisfaction, and adverse events. Time points included 3-months, 1-year, and 2-3 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen publications (1,010 patients) were included. High to moderate certainty evidence showed no clinically important difference in long-term contracture reduction (PNF vs. LF (mean difference (MD): 7.6°; 95% CI: 1.8°-13.4°), CCH vs. LF (MD: 4.8°; 95% CI: -1.3°-10.9°)). Moderate certainty evidence indicated that LF provides the lowest risk of long-term recurrence (PNF vs. LF (relative risk (RR): 12.3; 95% CI: 1.6-92.4), CCH vs. LF (RR: 9.5; 95% CI 1.2-73.4)), LF has a higher risk of serious adverse events than PNF (RR: 0.5; 95% CI 0.3-0.9), and CCH has a higher risk of overall adverse events than PNF (RR: 4.8; 95% CI 2.9-7.0).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CCH, PNF, and LF are equally effective in long-term contracture reduction. However, LF yields more durable results at a higher risk of rare but serious adverse events. Current evidence suggests the use of PNF over CCH. However, ultimate treatment decisions should be tailored to individual patient preferences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20128,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Plastic and reconstructive surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Plastic and reconstructive surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011816\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011816","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:关于杜普伊特伦挛缩症的最佳治疗方法,目前尚未达成共识。之前的荟萃分析因数据综合方法不理想而受到限制。我们采用 GRADE 方法对经皮针穿筋膜切开术 (PNF)、胶原酶溶组织梭菌 (CCH) 和有限筋膜切除术 (LF) 的有效性和安全性进行了最新的证据综述:方法:在 CENTRAL、MEDLINE 和 Embase 中检索随机对照试验,比较 PNF、CCH 和 LF 治疗杜普伊特伦挛缩症的效果。相关结果包括残余挛缩、复发率、手部功能、疼痛、总体满意度和不良事件。时间点包括 3 个月、1 年和 2-3 年:结果:共纳入17篇文献(1,010名患者)。高到中度确定性证据显示,在长期挛缩减少方面没有重要的临床差异(PNF vs. LF(平均差异(MD):7.6°;95% CI:1.8°-13.4°),CCH vs. LF(MD:4.8°;95% CI:-1.3°-10.9°))。中度确定性证据表明,LF 的长期复发风险最低(PNF vs. LF(相对风险 (RR):12.3;95% CI:1.6-92.4),CCH vs. LF(RR:9.5;95% CI 1.2-73.4)),LF发生严重不良事件的风险高于PNF(RR:0.5;95% CI 0.3-0.9),CCH发生总体不良事件的风险高于PNF(RR:4.8;95% CI 2.9-7.0):结论:CCH、PNF 和 LF 对长期减少挛缩同样有效。结论:CCH、PNF 和 LF 在减少长期挛缩方面同样有效,但 LF 的效果更持久,但发生罕见但严重不良事件的风险更高。目前的证据表明,PNF 比 CCH 更有效。不过,最终的治疗决定应根据患者的个人偏好而定。
Effectiveness and Safety of Dupuytren Contracture Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Using the GRADE Approach.
Background: There is currently no consensus on the optimal treatment for Dupuytren contracture. Prior meta-analyses have been limited by suboptimal data synthesis methodologies. We conducted an updated evidence review comparing the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous needle fasciotomy (PNF), collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH), and limited fasciectomy (LF) using the GRADE approach.
Methods: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes following PNF, CCH, and LF for Dupuytren contracture treatment. Outcomes of interest included residual contracture, recurrence rate, hand function, pain, global satisfaction, and adverse events. Time points included 3-months, 1-year, and 2-3 years.
Results: Seventeen publications (1,010 patients) were included. High to moderate certainty evidence showed no clinically important difference in long-term contracture reduction (PNF vs. LF (mean difference (MD): 7.6°; 95% CI: 1.8°-13.4°), CCH vs. LF (MD: 4.8°; 95% CI: -1.3°-10.9°)). Moderate certainty evidence indicated that LF provides the lowest risk of long-term recurrence (PNF vs. LF (relative risk (RR): 12.3; 95% CI: 1.6-92.4), CCH vs. LF (RR: 9.5; 95% CI 1.2-73.4)), LF has a higher risk of serious adverse events than PNF (RR: 0.5; 95% CI 0.3-0.9), and CCH has a higher risk of overall adverse events than PNF (RR: 4.8; 95% CI 2.9-7.0).
Conclusions: CCH, PNF, and LF are equally effective in long-term contracture reduction. However, LF yields more durable results at a higher risk of rare but serious adverse events. Current evidence suggests the use of PNF over CCH. However, ultimate treatment decisions should be tailored to individual patient preferences.
期刊介绍:
For more than 70 years Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® has been the one consistently excellent reference for every specialist who uses plastic surgery techniques or works in conjunction with a plastic surgeon. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® , the official journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, is a benefit of Society membership, and is also available on a subscription basis.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® brings subscribers up-to-the-minute reports on the latest techniques and follow-up for all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including breast reconstruction, experimental studies, maxillofacial reconstruction, hand and microsurgery, burn repair, cosmetic surgery, as well as news on medicolegal issues. The cosmetic section provides expanded coverage on new procedures and techniques and offers more cosmetic-specific content than any other journal. All subscribers enjoy full access to the Journal''s website, which features broadcast quality videos of reconstructive and cosmetic procedures, podcasts, comprehensive article archives dating to 1946, and additional benefits offered by the newly-redesigned website.