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。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Plastic and reconstructive surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-15 DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000011816
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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
13.90%
发文量
1436
审稿时长
1.5 months
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.
期刊最新文献
Spontaneous recovery of active shoulder external rotation in patients with brachial plexus birth injury. Comparative effectiveness of pre-epiglottic baton plates and mandibular distraction in infants with Robin sequence. Long-Term Surgical Outcomes of Intermediate Cleft Rhinoplasty. Predictors of Facial Synkinesis Severity. The Racial Representation of Cosmetic Minimally Invasive Procedure Patients and Physicians on Social Media.
×
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