IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Pub Date : 2025-02-27 DOI:10.1186/s12891-025-08371-y
Dimitris Challoumas, Haroon Minhas, Stephanie Bagni, Neal Millar
{"title":"Early versus delayed mobilisation for non-surgically treated proximal humerus fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.","authors":"Dimitris Challoumas, Haroon Minhas, Stephanie Bagni, Neal Millar","doi":"10.1186/s12891-025-08371-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are among the commonest bony injuries and the majority of them can be managed non-surgically. The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness and safety of early versus delayed mobilisation in conservatively treated PHFs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was performed in Medline, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov in Januray 2025 aiming to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early versus delayed (conventional) mobilisation as part of the non-surgical management of PHFs. Primary outcomes were patient-reported function and pain at short-term (3 months), mid-term (6 months) and long-term (12 months) follow-up, and secondary outcomes included secondary fracture displacement and total complications. Meta-analyses produced mean differences (MDs) or standardised MDs (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE tool. Recommendations for clinical practice were given only based on results of high or moderate certainty of evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six (6) RCTs were included that compared early mobilisation (EM; within one week from injury) to delayed mobilisation (DM; after 3 or 4 weeks of immobilisation) with a total of 470 patients with PHFs. There were no differences in patient-reported function (combined or Constant score) or pain between the EM and DM groups at any follow-up time points except for a significant difference in combined function scores favouring EM [SMD 0.4 CI (0.1,0.7), P = 0.006] at 3 months follow-up. There were no significant differences in the incidence of secondary fracture displacement and total complications in the two groups [OR 3.5 CI (0.7,18.2), P > 0.05, and OR 1.2 CI (0.5,2.9), P > 0.05, respectively]. All results were based on moderate or high strength of evidence. The most significant limitations of our study were the small number of pooled studies and inability to perform subgroup analyses for specific fracture types.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our meta-analysis of RCTs showed that commencement of mobilisation within one week from injury for non-surgically managed PHFs is safe and may confer short-term functional benefits compared to delayed mobilisation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9189,"journal":{"name":"BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders","volume":"26 1","pages":"203"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11866563/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-025-08371-y","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

摘要

背景:肱骨近端骨折(PHFs)是最常见的骨骼损伤之一,其中大部分可以通过非手术治疗。我们的系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较保守治疗 PHF 早期活动与延迟活动的有效性和安全性:2025年1月,我们在Medline、EMBASE和clinicaltrials.gov上进行了文献检索,旨在确定所有随机对照试验(RCT),比较作为PHFs非手术治疗一部分的早期和延迟(传统)动员。主要研究结果为短期(3个月)、中期(6个月)和长期(12个月)随访时患者报告的功能和疼痛,次要研究结果包括继发性骨折移位和总并发症。Meta分析得出了连续性结果的平均差(MDs)或标准化MDs(SMDs),以及二元性结果的几率比(ORs)和95%置信区间(CI)。采用 GRADE 工具对证据的确定性进行评估。临床实践建议仅基于高度或中度证据确定性的结果:共纳入了六(6)项RCT研究,对早期康复(EM,受伤后一周内)和延迟康复(DM,固定3或4周后)进行了比较,共纳入了470名PHF患者。在任何随访时间点,EM组和DM组在患者报告的功能(综合评分或恒定评分)或疼痛方面均无差异,但在随访3个月时,EM组的综合功能评分有显著差异[SMD 0.4 CI (0.1,0.7),P = 0.006]。两组患者继发性骨折移位和总并发症的发生率无明显差异[OR 分别为 3.5 CI (0.7,18.2),P > 0.05;OR 分别为 1.2 CI (0.5,2.9),P > 0.05]。所有结果均基于中度或高度证据强度。我们研究的最大局限性在于合并研究的数量较少,且无法针对特定骨折类型进行亚组分析:我们对研究性试验进行的荟萃分析表明,与延迟活动相比,在受伤后一周内开始活动对于非手术治疗的PHF是安全的,并可能带来短期的功能益处。
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
Early versus delayed mobilisation for non-surgically treated proximal humerus fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Background: Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are among the commonest bony injuries and the majority of them can be managed non-surgically. The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness and safety of early versus delayed mobilisation in conservatively treated PHFs.

Methods: A literature search was performed in Medline, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov in Januray 2025 aiming to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early versus delayed (conventional) mobilisation as part of the non-surgical management of PHFs. Primary outcomes were patient-reported function and pain at short-term (3 months), mid-term (6 months) and long-term (12 months) follow-up, and secondary outcomes included secondary fracture displacement and total complications. Meta-analyses produced mean differences (MDs) or standardised MDs (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE tool. Recommendations for clinical practice were given only based on results of high or moderate certainty of evidence.

Results: Six (6) RCTs were included that compared early mobilisation (EM; within one week from injury) to delayed mobilisation (DM; after 3 or 4 weeks of immobilisation) with a total of 470 patients with PHFs. There were no differences in patient-reported function (combined or Constant score) or pain between the EM and DM groups at any follow-up time points except for a significant difference in combined function scores favouring EM [SMD 0.4 CI (0.1,0.7), P = 0.006] at 3 months follow-up. There were no significant differences in the incidence of secondary fracture displacement and total complications in the two groups [OR 3.5 CI (0.7,18.2), P > 0.05, and OR 1.2 CI (0.5,2.9), P > 0.05, respectively]. All results were based on moderate or high strength of evidence. The most significant limitations of our study were the small number of pooled studies and inability to perform subgroup analyses for specific fracture types.

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis of RCTs showed that commencement of mobilisation within one week from injury for non-surgically managed PHFs is safe and may confer short-term functional benefits compared to delayed mobilisation.

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
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 医学-风湿病学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
8.70%
发文量
1017
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology. The scope of the Journal covers research into rheumatic diseases where the primary focus relates specifically to a component(s) of the musculoskeletal system.
期刊最新文献
Arthroscopic Bankart repair using trans-glenoid double-loaded grand knots versus double-loaded suture anchors; is there a difference? a randomized controlled study. Comparison of the clinical efficacy of patellar lateral retraction and patellar eversion in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The prevalence and surgical outcome of late diagnosed hip dysplasia in children with Prader-Willi syndrome: a retrospective study. Muscle loading and endochondral ossification are involved in the regeneration of a fibrocartilaginous enthesis during tendon to bone healing in rabbits. An update on improvement and innovation in the management of adult thoracolumbar spinal deformity.
×
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