Efficacy and safety of tension band wire versus plate for Mayo II olecranon fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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; I2 = 41%) and Dash score (MD: 2.32; 95% CI 1.91, 2.73; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%), also carrying fewer complications (RR: 2.13; 95% CI 1.48, 3.08; P < 0.0001; I2 = 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; I2 = 71%) and extension deficits (MD: 1.52°; 95% CI − 0.38, 3.42; P = 0.12; I2 = 92%). Moreover, TBW is featured with a shorter operation time (MD = − 5.87 min; 95% CI − 7.93, − 3.82; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0) and less intraoperative bleeding (MD: − 5.33 ml; 95% CI − 8.15, − 2.52; P = 0.0002; I2 = 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".