MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3097567763 · doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000001524

What Is the Relative Effectiveness of the Various Surgical Treatment Options for Distal Radius Fractures? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020· review· en· W3097567763 sur OpenAlexaff
Taylor Woolnough, Daniel Axelrod, Anthony Bozzo, Alex Koziarz, Frank Koziarz, Colby Oitment, Lauren Gyemi, Jessica Gormley, Kyle Gouveia, Herman Johal

Notice bibliographique

RevueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2020
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Établissements canadiensImpactMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntramedullary rodSurgeryExternal fixationMeta-analysisPercutaneous pinningPercutaneousSports medicinePolytraumaFixation (population genetics)Internal fixationPhysical therapyPopulationExternal fixatorInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many acceptable treatment options exist for distal radius fractures (DRFs); however, a simultaneous comparison of all methods is difficult using conventional study designs. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on DRF treatment to answer the following questions: Compared with nonoperative treatment, (1) which intervention is associated with the best 1-year functional outcome? (2) Which intervention is associated with the lowest risk of overall complications? (3) Which intervention is associated with the lowest risk of complications requiring operation? METHODS: Ten databases were searched from inception to July 25, 2019. Search and analysis reporting adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Included studies were English-language RCTs that assessed at least one surgical treatment arm for adult patients with displaced DRFs, with less than 20% loss to follow-up. We excluded RCTs reporting on patients with open fractures, extensive bone loss, or ipsilateral upper extremity polytrauma. Seventy RCTs (n = 4789 patients) were included. Treatments compared were the volar locking plate, bridging external fixation, nonbridging external fixation, dynamic external fixation, percutaneous pinning, intramedullary fixation, dorsal plating, fragment-specific plating, and nonoperative treatment. Subgroup analyses were conducted for intraarticular fractures, extraarticular fractures, and patients with an average age greater than 60 years. Mean (range) patient age was 59 years (56 to 63) and was similar across all treatment groups except for dynamic external fixation (44 years) and fragment-specific plating (47 years). Distribution of intraarticular and extraarticular fractures was approximately equal among the treatment groups other than that for intramedullary fixation (73% extraarticular), fragment-specific plating (66% intraarticular) [13, 70], and dorsal plating (100% intraarticular). Outcomes were the DASH score at 1 year, total complications, and reoperation. The minimum clinically important different (MCID) for the DASH score was set at 10 points. The analysis was performed using Bayesian methodology with random-effects models. Rank orders were generated using surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. Evidence quality was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Most studies had a low risk of bias due to randomization and low rates of incomplete follow-up, unclear risk of bias due to selective reporting, and high risk of bias due to lack of patient and assessor blinding. Studies assessing bridging external fixation and/or nonoperative treatment arms had a higher overall risk of bias while studies with volar plating and/or percutaneous pinning treatment arms had a lower risk of bias. RESULTS: Across all patients, there were no clinically important differences in terms of the DASH score at 1 year; although differences were found, all were less than the MCID of 10 points. Volar plating was ranked the highest for DASH score at 1 year (mean difference -7.34 [95% credible interval -11 to -3.7) while intramedullary fixation, with low-quality evidence, also showed improvement in DASH score (mean difference -7.75 [95% CI -14.6 to -0.56]). The subgroup analysis revealed that only locked volar plating was favored over nonoperative treatment for patients older than 60 years of age (mean difference -6.4 [95% CI -11 to -2.1]) and for those with intraarticular fractures (mean difference -8.4 [95% CI -15 to -2.0]). However, its clinical importance was uncertain as the MCID was not met. Among all patients, intramedullary fixation (odds ratio 0.09 [95% CI 0.02 to 0.84]) and locked volar plating (OR 0.14 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.39]) were associated with a lower complication risk compared with nonoperative treatment. For intraarticular fractures, volar plating was the only treatment associated with a lower risk of complications than nonoperative treatment (OR 0.021 [95% CI < 0.01 to 0.50]). For extraarticular fractures, only nonbridging external fixation was associated with a lower risk of complications than nonoperative treatment (OR 0.011 [95% CI < 0.01 to 0.65]), although the quality of evidence was low. Among all patients, the risk of complications requiring operation was lower with intramedullary fixation (OR 0.06 [95% CI < 0.01 to 0.85) than with nonoperative treatment, but no treatment was favored over nonoperative treatment when analyzed by subgroups. CONCLUSION: We found no clinically important differences favoring any surgical treatment option with respect to 1-year functional outcome. However, relative to the other options, volar plating was associated with a lower complication risk, particularly in patients with intraarticular fractures, while nonbridging external fixation was associated with a lower complication risk in patients with extraarticular fractures. For patients older than 60 years of age, nonoperative treatment may still be the preferred option because there is no reliable evidence showing a consistent decrease in complications or complications requiring operation among the other treatment options. Particularly in this age group, the decision to expose patients to even a single surgery should be made with caution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,134
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,075
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: Méta-analyse
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,254
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,974

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,1340,075
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0460,035
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,002
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,224
Tête enseignante GPT0,520
Écart entre enseignants0,296 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeMéta-analyse
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations53
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchMême sujetOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationTravaux en français237 207