A systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment of acute lisfranc injuries: Open reduction and internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilhan Alcelik ◽  
Carl Fenton ◽  
Gary Hannant ◽  
Musaab Abdelrahim ◽  
Charlie Jowett ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 328-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry H.P. Magill ◽  
Shahab Hajibandeh ◽  
James Bennett ◽  
Nathan Campbell ◽  
Jaysheel Mehta

Author(s):  
Abdullah A. Ghaddaf ◽  
Ahmed S. Abdulhamid ◽  
Mohammed S. Alomari ◽  
Mohammed S. Alquhaibi ◽  
Abdulaziz A. Alshehri ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Zhao ◽  
Yuhui Zhang ◽  
Dongni Johansson ◽  
Xingyu Chen ◽  
Fang Zheng ◽  
...  

Objective. The study aims to compare minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of proximal humeral fracture in elder patients. Method. PubMed, Medline, EMbase, Ovid, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wangfang, and VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals were searched to identify all relevant studies from inception to October 2016. Data were analyzed with Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manage 5.2. Results. A total of 630 patients from 8 publications were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that MIPO was superior to ORIF in the treatment of proximal humeral fracture in elder patients. It was reflected in reducing blood loss, operation time, postoperative pain, or fracture healing time of the surgery and in improving recovery of muscle strength. Concerning complications, no significant difference was seen between MIPO and ORIF. Conclusion. The MIPO was more suitable than ORIF for treating proximal humeral fracture in elder patients.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
ZhiBo Deng ◽  
JiangPing Wu ◽  
KaiYing Tang ◽  
Han Shu ◽  
Ting Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives It remains debatable if early mobilization (EM) yields a better clinical outcome than the late mobilization (LM) in adults with an acute and displaced distal radial fracture (DRF) of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). Therefore, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing clinical results with the safety of EM with LM following ORIF. Methods Databases such as Medline, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase were searched from Jan 1, 2000, to July 31, 2021, and RCTs comparing EM with LM for DRF with ORIF were included in the analysis. The primary outcome of study included disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score at different follow-up times. Wherever the secondary outcomes included patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE), grip strength (GS), visual analog scale (VAS), wrist range of motion (WROM), and associated complications, the two independent reviewers did data extraction for the analysis. Effect sizes of outcome for each group were pooled using random-effects models; thereafter, the results were represented in the forest plots. Results Nine RCTs with 293 EM and 303 LM participants were identified and included in the study. Our analysis showed that the DASH score of the EM group was significantly better than LM group at the six weeks postoperatively (− 10.15; 95% CI − 15.74 to − 4.57, P < 0.01). Besides, the EM group also had better outcomes in PRWE, GS and WROM at 6 weeks. However, EM showed potential higher rate for implant loosening and/or fracture re-displacement complication (3.00; 95% CI 1.02–8.83, P = 0.05). Conclusion Functionally, at earlier stages, EM for patients with DRF of ORIF may have a beneficial effect than LM. The mean differences in the DASH score at 6 weeks surpassed the minimal clinically important difference; however, the potentially higher risk of implant loosening and/or fracture re-displacement cannot be ignored. Due to the lack of definitive evidence, multicenter and large sample RCTs are required for determining the optimal rehabilitation protocol for DRF with ORIF. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021240214 2021/2/28.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document