METHODS: Cochrane Database, PubMed, Google Scholar and MEDLINE were examined to find out relevant publications dealing with the different outcomes of SR vs. ORIF in B2/B3 PFF of the hip. The effect model (EM) was calculated using Cohen´s d index.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included, reporting on a total of 1629 patients (564 ORIF and 1065 SR). The pooled random EM estimates for reoperation was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.39-1.96; I2 = 78%) in favor of ORIF surgery; EM for complications was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.45-2.27; I2 = 85%) without difference among procedures. The EM for transfusion was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.46-1.12; I2 = 62%) in favor of fixation.
CONCLUSIONS: ORIF and SR were both suitable and effective options in PFF patients, being associated to similar complications rates. Our results show that ORIF performance in PFF patients is associated to significantly less in blood loss, surgical time and in-hospital stay. These advantages are particularly appealing in patients with multiple comorbidities.
方法:Cochrane数据库,PubMed,对GoogleScholar和MEDLINE进行了检查,以找出处理SR与SR的不同结果的相关出版物。ORIF在髋部的B2/B3PFF中。使用Cohen'sd指数计算效应模型(EM)。
结果:纳入了15项研究,共报告1629例患者(564个ORIF和1065个SR)。再次手术的合并随机EM估计值为0.87(95%CI,0.39-1.96;I2=78%),有利于ORIF手术;并发症的EM为1.01(95%CI,0.45-2.27;I2=85%),程序之间无差异。输血的EM为0.72(95%CI,0.46-1.12;I2=62%),有利于固定。
结论:ORIF和SR是PFF患者的有效选择,与类似的并发症发生率有关。我们的结果表明,PFF患者的ORIF表现与明显减少失血有关,手术时间和住院时间。这些优点在具有多种合并症的患者中特别有吸引力。