Qi Sun1, Wei Ge1, Gen Li1, Jiezhou Wu1, Guanghua Lu1, Ming Cai1, Shaohua Li2. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200072, China. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200072, China. tjdxsq@tongji.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcome and complications of locking plates versus intramedullary nails in patients with displaced proximal humeral fractures. Our hypothesis was that there would be no difference between these two implants with regard to clinical outcome and complications. METHODS: We performed a systemic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Clinical Trials Registry, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective comparative studies on April 26, 2017. The studies of locking plates compared to intramedullary nails in patients with displaced proximal humeral fractures were included. We conducted a meta-analysis of shoulder functional scores, range of motion, pain scores, and complications. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 13 comparative studies with 958 patients (529 in the locking plate group and 429 in the intramedullary nail group). A significantly greater external rotation (MD = 9.67; 95% CI, 4.22-15.12; P = 0.0005) and a significantly higher penetration rate (RR = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.77; P = 0.02) were observed in the locking plate group compared with the intramedullary nail group. Constant-Murley scores, DASH scores and total complication rate were comparable between the two groups. Moreover, there were no significant differences in forward elevation, VAS scores, and other complications. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence indicates that locking plates and intramedullary nails have similar performance in terms of the functional scores and total complication rate. No superior treatment was suggested between locking plates and intramedullary nails for displaced proximal humeral fractures.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcome and complications of locking plates versus intramedullary nails in patients with displaced proximal humeral fractures. Our hypothesis was that there would be no difference between these two implants with regard to clinical outcome and complications. METHODS: We performed a systemic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Clinical Trials Registry, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective comparative studies on April 26, 2017. The studies of locking plates compared to intramedullary nails in patients with displaced proximal humeral fractures were included. We conducted a meta-analysis of shoulder functional scores, range of motion, pain scores, and complications. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 13 comparative studies with 958 patients (529 in the locking plate group and 429 in the intramedullary nail group). A significantly greater external rotation (MD = 9.67; 95% CI, 4.22-15.12; P = 0.0005) and a significantly higher penetration rate (RR = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.77; P = 0.02) were observed in the locking plate group compared with the intramedullary nail group. Constant-Murley scores, DASH scores and total complication rate were comparable between the two groups. Moreover, there were no significant differences in forward elevation, VAS scores, and other complications. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence indicates that locking plates and intramedullary nails have similar performance in terms of the functional scores and total complication rate. No superior treatment was suggested between locking plates and intramedullary nails for displaced proximal humeral fractures.
Authors: Antonio Urda; Ana González; Alvaro Colino; Yaiza Lópiz; Carlos García-Fernández; Fernando Marco Journal: Injury Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: N Südkamp; J Bayer; P Hepp; C Voigt; H Oestern; M Kääb; C Luo; M Plecko; K Wendt; W Köstler; G Konrad Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Kenneth A Egol; Crispin C Ong; Michael Walsh; Laith M Jazrawi; Nirmal C Tejwani; Joseph D Zuckerman Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 2.512