MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289549915 · doi:10.1186/s13018-022-03262-7

Efficacy and safety of tension band wire versus plate for Mayo II olecranon fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4289549915 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yizhen Jia, Aifeng Liu, Tianci Guo, Jixin Chen, Weijie Yu, Jingbo Zhai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineOlecranonMeta-analysisOrthopedic surgeryOrthodonticsSurgeryElbowInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose For olecranon fractures, the choice of tension band wire (TBW) or plate fixation has long been controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TBW and plate in the treatment of patients with Mayo II olecranon fractures by Meta-analysis. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, the Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and China Biomedical Database were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CSs) where TBW was compared with plate for Mayo II olecranon fractures (OF). Subsequently, the data were extracted by two reviewers independently and were analysed via RevMan5.4.1. Besides, mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Furthermore, Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale were adopted for assessing the risk of bias. Results A total of 1RCT and 10 CSs were included, when 449 cases were treated with TBW and 378 with plate. The plate has favourable postoperative long-term (≥ 1 year) functional score in MEPS (MD: − 3.06; 95% CI − 5.50 to 0.62; P = 0.01; I 2 = 41%) and Dash score (MD: 2.32; 95% CI 1.91, 2.73; P < 0.00001; I 2 = 0%), also carrying fewer complications (RR: 2.13; 95% CI 1.48, 3.08; P < 0.0001; I 2 = 58%). Besides, there exists no significant difference in postoperative long-term (≥ 1 year) elbow flexion (MD: − 1.82°; 95% CI − 8.54, 4.90; P = 0.60; I 2 = 71%) and extension deficits (MD: 1.52°; 95% CI − 0.38, 3.42; P = 0.12; I 2 = 92%). Moreover, TBW is featured with a shorter operation time (MD = − 5.87 min; 95% CI − 7.93, − 3.82; P < 0.00001; I 2 = 0) and less intraoperative bleeding (MD: − 5.33 ml; 95% CI − 8.15, − 2.52; P = 0.0002; I 2 = 0). In terms of fracture healing time, it is still controversial. Furthermore, the subgroup analysis has revealed that for Mayo IIA OF, the plate has a better outcome in the long-term (≥ 1 year) postoperative MEPS, the Dash score, and the incidence of postoperative complications than TBW, while there is no significant difference in the long-term (≥ 1 year) postoperative elbow motion between two groups. Conclusions Plate has better efficacy and safety for Mayo II OF. Considering that few studies are included in the meta-analysis, more high-quality RCTs are still required to confirm these findings. PROSPERO registration number : CRD42022313855.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.262
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and ResearchSame topicElbow and Forearm Trauma TreatmentFrench-language works237,207