Search

Abstract Intramedullary fixation (IMF) has been described as a minimally invasive alternative to open reduction and internal fixation for operative treatment of distal fibular fractures in case of compromised soft tissue or severe comorbidities. The objective was to compare postoperative complications and functional outcomes of intramedullary versus plate fixation (PF) in distal fibular fractures. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases were searched for both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. A total of 26 studies was included, reporting on 1710 patients with a mean age of 51.6 years. Meta-analysis was performed on 8 comparative studies, including subgroup and sensitivity analyses on all outcomes. IMF was associated with significantly fewer wound related complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.25; p <.01), implant removals (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.93; p =.03), and nonunions (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.62; p <.01). No differences were found regarding malunion (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.21; p =.11) and the Olerud Molander Ankle Score for long-term functional outcome (mean difference, 9.56; 95% CI, 1.24 to 20.37; p =.08). Results of this study apply to a select group of patients, in which the advantages of minimal soft tissue damage by IMF are preferable to optimal fracture reduction by PF. IMF of distal fibular fractures resulted in fewer wound-related complications, implant removals, and nonunions compared with PF. Especially in elderly patients, patients with chronic comorbidity, and patients with compromised soft tissue, IMF may be preferred over PF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is no consensus on the choice of treatment for displaced proximal humeral fractures in older patients (aged > 65 years). The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were (1) to compare operative with nonoperative management of displaced proximal humeral fractures and (2) to compare effect estimates obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods The databases of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched on September 5, 2017, for studies comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment of proximal humeral fractures; both RCTs and observational studies were included. The criteria of the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies, a validated instrument for methodologic quality assessment, were used to assess study quality. The primary outcome measure was physical function as measured by the absolute Constant-Murley score after operative or nonoperative treatment. Secondary outcome measures were major reinterventions, nonunion, and avascular necrosis. Results We included 22 studies, comprising 7 RCTs and 15 observational studies, resulting in 1743 patients in total: 910 treated operatively and 833 nonoperatively. The average age was 68.3 years, and 75% of patients were women. There was no difference in functional outcome between operative and nonoperative treatment, with a mean difference of –0.87 (95% confidence interval, –5.13 to 3.38; P  = .69; I 2  = 69%). Major reinterventions occurred more often in the operative group. Pooled effects of RCTs were similar to pooled effects of observational studies for all outcome measures. Conclusions We recommend nonoperative treatment for the average elderly patient (aged > 65 years) with a displaced proximal humeral fracture. Pooled effects of observational studies were similar to those of RCTs, and including observational studies led to more generalizable conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is no consensus on the choice of treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures (MCFs). Purpose: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were (1) to compare fracture healing disorders and functional outcomes of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of MCFs and (2) to compare effect estimates obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were searched for both RCTs and observational studies. Using the MINORS instrument, all included studies were assessed on their methodological quality. The primary outcome was a nonunion. Effects of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment were estimated using random-effects meta-analysis models. Results: A total of 20 studies were included, of which 8 were RCTs and 12 were observational studies including 1760 patients. Results were similar across the different study designs. A meta-analysis of 19 studies revealed that nonunions were significantly less common after surgical treatment than after nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 0.18 [95% CI, 0.10-0.33]). The risk of malunions did not differ between surgical and nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.12-1.19]). Both the long-term Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Constant-Murley scores favored surgical treatment (DASH: mean difference [MD], −2.04 [95% CI, −3.56 to −0.52]; Constant-Murley: MD, 3.23 [95% CI, 1.52 to 4.95]). No differences were observed regarding revision surgery (OR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.42-1.73]). Including only high-quality studies, both the number of malunions and days to return to work show significant differences in favor of surgical treatment (malunions: OR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.92]; return to work: MD, −8.64 [95% CI, −16.22 to −1.05]). Conclusion: This meta-analysis of high-quality studies showed that surgical treatment of MCFs results in fewer nonunions, fewer malunions, and an accelerated return to work compared with nonsurgical treatment. A meta-analysis of surgical treatments need not be restricted to randomized trials, provided that the included observational studies are of high quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The last decade has shown a shift toward operative treatment of a subset of midshaft clavicle fractures. However, it is unclear whether there are differences between plate fixation and intramedullary fixation regarding complications and functional outcome. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare plate fixation and intramedullary fixation for midshaft clavicle fractures. Methods The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. The methodologic quality of all included studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies. Results Twenty studies were included. Ten of the 20 included studies used a fracture classification. Seven of these studies reported exclusion of patients with comminuted fractures. No difference in the total re-intervention rate was found (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 2.04). Major re-interventions occurred more often after plate fixation (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.46). The mean implant removal rates were 38% after plate fixation and 73% after intramedullary fixation. Re-fracture after implant removal occurred more often after plate fixation (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.12 to 10.42). The Constant-Murley scores showed no differences at both short term (mean difference, −1.18; 95% CI, −13.41 to 11.05) and long term (mean difference, 0.15; 95% CI, −1.57 to 1.87). No differences were observed regarding nonunion (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.82 to 2.75). The rate of infections showed no differences when outlier studies were excluded (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.88 to 2.69). Conclusion Major re-intervention and re-fracture after implant removal occurred more frequently after plate fixation of non-comminuted, displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. No differences in terms of function and nonunion between plate fixation and intramedullary fixation were observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement.Methods: The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement.Results: The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001).Conclusion: There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]