OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of intramedullary fixation with the extramedullary fixation in the surgical management of subtrochanteric fractures by analyzing relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies (RCSs). METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang database, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched from their inception till June 29, 2020. Two reviewers extracted the data, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy time, length of stay, union time, nonunion rate, infection rate, implant failure rate, reoperation rate, Harris hip score, and mortality rate. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale were used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs and RCSs, respectively. Statistical heterogeneity was quantitatively evaluated with the I2 statistic. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, average length of stay in hospital, infection rate, implant failure rate, Harris hip scores, and mortality rate. Intramedullary nail could achieve shorter union time (MD=-1.77, 95% CI -3.40~-0.14, p=0.03), lower nonunion rate (RR=0.36, 95%CI 0.14~0.97, p=0.04), and reoperation rate (RR=0.46, 95% CI 0.24~0.89, p=0.02) than extramedullary fixations. The subgroup analysis indicated that intramedullary nail was superior than extramedullary fixations in operation time, reoperation rate, and Harris hip scores in the ≥60-year subgroup. However, the intraoperative blood loss in intramedullary nail group was significantly higher than that of extramedullary fixation group in the <60-year subgroup. CONCLUSION: The results of this study have revealed that intramedullary fixation can confer shorter union time, lower nonunion, and reoperation rates compared with extramedullary fixations. Therefore, intramedullary fixation should be considered as the first selection for the treatment of patients with subtrochanteric fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Therapeutic study.
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of intramedullary fixation with the extramedullary fixation in the surgical management of subtrochanteric fractures by analyzing relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies (RCSs). METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang database, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched from their inception till June 29, 2020. Two reviewers extracted the data, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy time, length of stay, union time, nonunion rate, infection rate, implant failure rate, reoperation rate, Harris hip score, and mortality rate. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale were used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs and RCSs, respectively. Statistical heterogeneity was quantitatively evaluated with the I2 statistic. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, average length of stay in hospital, infection rate, implant failure rate, Harris hip scores, and mortality rate. Intramedullary nail could achieve shorter union time (MD=-1.77, 95% CI -3.40~-0.14, p=0.03), lower nonunion rate (RR=0.36, 95%CI 0.14~0.97, p=0.04), and reoperation rate (RR=0.46, 95% CI 0.24~0.89, p=0.02) than extramedullary fixations. The subgroup analysis indicated that intramedullary nail was superior than extramedullary fixations in operation time, reoperation rate, and Harris hip scores in the ≥60-year subgroup. However, the intraoperative blood loss in intramedullary nail group was significantly higher than that of extramedullary fixation group in the <60-year subgroup. CONCLUSION: The results of this study have revealed that intramedullary fixation can confer shorter union time, lower nonunion, and reoperation rates compared with extramedullary fixations. Therefore, intramedullary fixation should be considered as the first selection for the treatment of patients with subtrochanteric fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Therapeutic study.
Authors: Muiris T Kennedy; Aniruddha Mitra; Timothy G Hierlihy; James A Harty; Declan Reidy; Mark Dolan Journal: Injury Date: 2011-04-17 Impact factor: 2.586