Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Both bone forearm fractures (BBFFs) are a common injury amongst the pediatric population. The main indications of surgical fixation are open, irreducible, or unstable fractures. The two most commonly used surgical techniques are closed or open reduction with intramedullary fixation (IMF) and open reduction with plate fixation (PF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine which fixation method is superior for BBFFs.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing IMF and PF. We extracted data on union rates, complications, early hardware removal rates, reoperation rates, and radiographic, clinical, and perioperative outcomes.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 922 patients (539 IMF and 383 PF). Similar union rates were achieved by both fixation technique. IMF was associated with a higher incidence of symptomatic hardware, and early hardware removal. Better restoration of the radial bow was observed with the PF group, especially in older children and adolescents. The rate of excellent function was comparable between groups, whereas better cosmesis was reported with the IMF group. Despite shorter fluoroscopy time and immobilization time, PF demonstrated longer tourniquet time, operating time, and hospital stay compared to IMF.
CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference between IMF and PF in terms of union rates and functional outcomes taking in consideration the merits and demerits of each technique. High-quality randomized controlled trials are, therefore, necessary to determine the superiority of one fixation technique over the other.
METHODS: III.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing IMF and PF. We extracted data on union rates, complications, early hardware removal rates, reoperation rates, and radiographic, clinical, and perioperative outcomes.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 922 patients (539 IMF and 383 PF). Similar union rates were achieved by both fixation technique. IMF was associated with a higher incidence of symptomatic hardware, and early hardware removal. Better restoration of the radial bow was observed with the PF group, especially in older children and adolescents. The rate of excellent function was comparable between groups, whereas better cosmesis was reported with the IMF group. Despite shorter fluoroscopy time and immobilization time, PF demonstrated longer tourniquet time, operating time, and hospital stay compared to IMF.
CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference between IMF and PF in terms of union rates and functional outcomes taking in consideration the merits and demerits of each technique. High-quality randomized controlled trials are, therefore, necessary to determine the superiority of one fixation technique over the other.
METHODS: III.
摘要：
背景：两种前臂骨骨折（BBFF）都是儿科人群中常见的损伤。手术固定的主要适应症是开放性的,不可约,或者不稳定的骨折.两种最常用的手术技术是闭合或切开复位髓内固定（IMF）和切开复位钢板固定（PF）。本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是确定哪种固定方法适用于BBFF。
方法：PubMed，Scopus,WebofScience,和CENTRAL进行了搜索，以确定比较IMF和PF的研究。我们提取了工会率的数据，并发症,早期硬件去除率，再操作率,和射线照相，临床,和围手术期结果。
结果：分析中包括16项研究，共有922例患者（539个IMF和383个PF）。两种固定技术均可实现相似的结合率。IMF与有症状硬件的发生率较高有关，和早期的硬件删除。PF组的桡骨弓恢复较好，尤其是年龄较大的儿童和青少年。两组间功能优良率相当，而国际货币基金组织小组报告了更好的宇宙观。尽管荧光透视时间和固定时间较短，PF显示更长的止血带时间，操作时间,与国际货币基金组织相比，住院时间。
结论：考虑到每种技术的优缺点，我们发现IMF和PF在结合率和功能结果方面没有显着差异。高质量的随机对照试验，因此,必须确定一种固定技术相对于另一种的优越性。
方法：III.
方法：PubMed，Scopus,WebofScience,和CENTRAL进行了搜索，以确定比较IMF和PF的研究。我们提取了工会率的数据，并发症,早期硬件去除率，再操作率,和射线照相，临床,和围手术期结果。
结果：分析中包括16项研究，共有922例患者（539个IMF和383个PF）。两种固定技术均可实现相似的结合率。IMF与有症状硬件的发生率较高有关，和早期的硬件删除。PF组的桡骨弓恢复较好，尤其是年龄较大的儿童和青少年。两组间功能优良率相当，而国际货币基金组织小组报告了更好的宇宙观。尽管荧光透视时间和固定时间较短，PF显示更长的止血带时间，操作时间,与国际货币基金组织相比，住院时间。
结论：考虑到每种技术的优缺点，我们发现IMF和PF在结合率和功能结果方面没有显着差异。高质量的随机对照试验，因此,必须确定一种固定技术相对于另一种的优越性。
方法：III.
