Hao Yin1, Zhengjun Pan2, Hua Jiang2. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of AnHui Medical University, China. Electronic address: helloyh2008@126.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of AnHui Medical University, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of dynamic locking plate (Targon FN) and other alternative implant (cannulated cancellous screws or sliding hip screw) for treating of intracapsular hip fracture. METHODS: Relevant clinical trials on the dynamic locking plate and alternative implant treatment for intracapsular hip fracture were retrieved through searching the databases, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to August 2017. Studies that investigated the comparing effectiveness or complications between both groups and provided sufficient data of interest were included in this meta-analysis. RESULTS: Four studies involving 385 intracapsular hip fractures were included. The differences in nonunion [odds ratio (OR) 0.16,95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05-0.49], revision (OR 0.56, 95%CI 0.32-0.96) and replacement rate (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.10-0.69) were statistically significant between dynamic locking plate and alternative implant group. There was no statistically significant difference in osteonecrosis (OR1.73, 95%CI0.59-5.02), cut-out (OR0.89,95%CI0.23-3.46)and non orthopaedics complication rate (OR0.73, 95% CI 0.38-1.41). CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence indicate that dynamic locking plate offers a superior outcome in comparison with alternative implants and reduces the nonunion, revision and replacement rates for treating intracapsular hip fractures, but does not affect the osteonecrosis, cutout and non-orthopadeics complication rate. Decisions should be made in accordance with specific conditions for clinical application.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of dynamic locking plate (Targon FN) and other alternative implant (cannulated cancellous screws or sliding hip screw) for treating of intracapsular hip fracture. METHODS: Relevant clinical trials on the dynamic locking plate and alternative implant treatment for intracapsular hip fracture were retrieved through searching the databases, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to August 2017. Studies that investigated the comparing effectiveness or complications between both groups and provided sufficient data of interest were included in this meta-analysis. RESULTS: Four studies involving 385 intracapsular hip fractures were included. The differences in nonunion [odds ratio (OR) 0.16,95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05-0.49], revision (OR 0.56, 95%CI 0.32-0.96) and replacement rate (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.10-0.69) were statistically significant between dynamic locking plate and alternative implant group. There was no statistically significant difference in osteonecrosis (OR1.73, 95%CI0.59-5.02), cut-out (OR0.89,95%CI0.23-3.46)and non orthopaedics complication rate (OR0.73, 95% CI 0.38-1.41). CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence indicate that dynamic locking plate offers a superior outcome in comparison with alternative implants and reduces the nonunion, revision and replacement rates for treating intracapsular hip fractures, but does not affect the osteonecrosis, cutout and non-orthopadeics complication rate. Decisions should be made in accordance with specific conditions for clinical application.