顺行锁定髓内钉和动力加压钢板治疗肱骨干骨折的系统评价

发布时间：2019-07-18 08:22

【摘要】：[目的]对比顺行锁定髓内钉和动力加压钢板治疗肱骨干骨折的临床结果,并为以后此类骨折的治疗提供更可信的证据。[方法]计算机检索Cochrane library、Medline、Embase、CNKI等数据库网站,检索2016年12月以前有关顺行锁定髓内钉和动力加压钢板治疗肱骨干骨折的文献,筛选文献后采用Revman 5.0软件进行分析,获得两种方法治疗肱骨干骨折的临床结果。[结果]最初搜索文献472篇,经过筛选后最终有8篇纳入研究,共计完成随访患者373例,其中顺行髓内钉治疗者187例,动力加压钢板治疗者186例。Meta分析表明,顺行锁定髓内钉组患者术后感染率明显低于动力加压钢板组[OR=0.34,95%CI(0.12,0.98),P=0.05],但前者肩部撞击征与再次手术率明显高于后者[OR=7.81,95%CI(2.51,24.33),P0.001;OR=2.61,95%CI(1.19,5.72),P=0.02],术后桡神经损伤与骨折不愈合率,两者之间差异无统计学意义。[结论]与顺行锁定髓内钉相比,动力加压钢板治疗肱骨干骨折可以降低肩部撞击征与再次手术发生率,但却增加了术后感染的发生率;术后桡神经损伤及骨折不愈合方面,两者差异无统计学意义。
[Abstract]:[objective] to compare the clinical results of anterior locking intramedullary nail and dynamic compression plate in the treatment of humeral shaft fracture, and to provide more credible evidence for the treatment of this kind of fracture in the future. [methods] Cochrane library,Medline,Embase,CNKI and other database websites were searched by computer, and the literature on the treatment of humeral shaft fracture with anterograde locking intramedullary nail and dynamic compression plate before December 2016 was searched. After screening, the literature was analyzed by Revman 5.0 software, and the clinical results of the two methods in the treatment of humeral shaft fracture were obtained. [results] A total of 373 follow-up patients were followed up, including 187 patients treated with intramedullary nailing and 186 patients treated with dynamic compression plate. Meta-analysis showed that the postoperative infection rate in the anterograde locking intramedullary nail group was significantly lower than that in the dynamic compression plate group [OR=0.34,95%CI (0.120.98), P 鈮，

本文编号：2515755