Presence of the Ossific Nucleus and Risk of Osteonecrosis in the Treatment of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Concern for increased risk of osteonecrosis in hips with an absent ossific nucleus has led some surgeons to delay reduction in the treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) until the ossific nucleus is present. A previous meta-analysis reported a potential protective effect against high-grade osteonecrosis (II to IV) when the ossific nucleus was present. With a greater number of publications on this topic, revisiting this analysis is warranted. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically review and analyze the best clinical evidence regarding the association between the status of the ossific nucleus and development of osteonecrosis following the treatment of DDH. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies including the status of the ossific nucleus and rate of osteonecrosis after open and closed reductions for the treatment of DDH. Study characteristics and risk estimates were extracted. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using a random-effect model. Meta-regression assessed the relationships of reduction method, study quality, mean age at reduction, surgical approach, method of ossific nucleus assessment, and duration of follow-up to the odds of osteonecrosis. RESULTS: In the 21 observational studies (18 retrospective, 3 prospective) that were included, osteonecrosis developed in 20.4% of the hips in which the ossific nucleus was present at reduction compared with 21.2% of the hips in which the ossific nucleus was absent. Presence of the ossific nucleus was not associated with decreased odds of any grade of osteonecrosis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.43 to 1.12) or of more severe osteonecrosis of Grades II to IV (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.30 to 1.17). Meta-regression did not show any effect of the mean age at reduction, reduction method, surgical approach, study quality, minimum or mean duration of follow-up, method of ossific nucleus imaging, or osteonecrosis classification system on the relationship between presence of the ossific nucleus and the risk of osteonecrosis. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature does not support the hypothesis that presence of the ossific nucleus at reduction is associated with lower risk of osteonecrosis. Prospective studies with long-term follow-up and blinded assessors are warranted to optimally evaluate the relationship between potential risk factors and the development of osteonecrosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».