Return to sport following navicular stress fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of three hundred and fifteen fractures
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Purpose This meta-analysis aims to provide updated evidence on the success rate, return to play (RTP) rate, time to RTP, and complications of operatively and conservatively managed navicular stress fractures (NSFs) as well as delays in diagnosis while avoiding limitations of previous similar studies. Methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, two independent team members electronically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Google Scholar, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases throughout February 2021 using the following keywords with their synonyms: “Navicular stress fracture,” “return to play,” and “athletes.” The primary outcomes were (1) management success rate, (2) RTP rate, and (3) time to RTP. The secondary outcomes were (1) non-union, (2) time to diagnosis, (3) refracture, and (4) other complications. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies on NSFs reporting at least one of the desirable outcomes. Studies not reporting any of the outcomes of interest or the full text was not available in English, German, French, or Arabic were excluded. Case reports, case series with less than ten cases, and studies reporting exclusively on navicular non-union management were also excluded. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used for quality assessment while Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.4 was used for the risk of bias assessment. Data were presented by type of treatment (surgical or conservative). If enough studies were present that were clinically and statistically homogeneous and data on them adequately reported, a meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effects model. In case of statistical heterogeneity, a random-effects model was used. If meta-analysis was not possible, results were reported in a descriptive fashion. The need to explore for statistical heterogeneity was determined by an I2 greater than 40%. Results Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 315 NSF. Out of those, 307 (97.46%) NSFs were in athletes. One hundred eight (34.29%) NSFs were managed operatively, while 207 (65.71%) NSFs were managed conservatively. Successful outcomes were reported in 104/108 (96.30%) NSF treated operatively with a mean success rate of 97.9% (CI: 95.4–100%, I2 = 0%). Successful outcomes were reported in 149/207 (71.98%) NSF treated conservatively, with a mean success rate of 78.1% (CI: 66.6–89.6%, I2 = 84.93%). Successful outcome differences were found to be significant in favor of operative management (OR = 5.52, CI: 1.74–17.48, p = 0.004, I2 = 4.6%). RTP was noted in 97/98 (98.98%) NSF treated operatively and in 152/207 (73.43%) NSF treated conservatively, with no significant difference between operative and conservative management (OR = 2.789, CI: 0.80–9.67, p = 0.142, I2 = 0%). The pooled mean time to RTP in NSF treated operatively was 4.17 months (CI: 3.06–5.28, I2 = 92.88%), while NSF treated conservatively returned to play at 4.67 months (CI: 0.97–8.37, I2 = 99.46%) postoperatively, with no significant difference between operative and conservative management (SMD = − 0.397, CI: − 1.869–1.075, p = 0.60, I2 = 92.24). The pooled mean duration of symptoms before diagnosis was 9.862 (3.3–123.6) months (CI: 6.45–13.28, I2 = 94.92%), reported in ten studies. Twenty (23.53%) refractures were reported after conservative management of 85 NSFs, while one (1.28%) refracture was reported after operative management of 78 NSFs, with a significant difference in favor of operative management (OR = 0.083, CI: 0.007–0.973, p = 0.047, I2 = 38.78%). Conclusion Operative management of NSF provides a higher success rate, a lower refracture rate, and a lower non-union rate as compared to other non-operative management options. While not significant, there is a notable trend towards superior RTP rates and time to RTP following operative management. Therefore, we recommend operative fixation for all NSFs type I through III in athletes. Athletes continue to exhibit an alarmingly long duration of symptoms before diagnosis is made; a high index of suspicion must be maintained, therefore, and adjunct CT imaging is strongly recommended in the case of any work-up. Unfortunately, the published literature on NSFs remains of lower level of evidence and high-quality studies are needed.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,034 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,022 | 0,055 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».