髓内钉固定与加压钢板内固定比较治疗成人肱骨干骨折的系统评价

目的系统评价髓内钉固定与加压钢板内固定比较治疗成人肱骨干骨折的疗效及不良反应。方法计算机检索Cochrane图书馆(2006年第1期)、MEDLINE (1966～2006)、EMBASE(1980～2006)、NRR(http:／／www．update- software．com／National／)、CCT(http://www．controlled-trials．com)和中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)。手工检索6种中文主要骨科杂志。收集髓内钉固定与加压钢板内固定比较治疗成人肱骨干骨折的随机对照试验,并评价纳入研究的方法学质量。统计软件采用Cochrane协作网提供的RevMan 4．2．8。结果共纳入随机对照试验3篇,共215例患者,方法学质量均为B级。Meta分析结果表明,髓内钉与钢板比较,前者固定术后二次手术率较高[OR=2．68, 95％CI(1．19,6．04),P=0．02],且术后肩部疼痛及肩关节活动范围减少明显[OR=13．02,95％CI(2．23,75．95),P=0．004;OR=18．60,95％CI(1．01, 341．83),P=0．05];在骨折不愈合率、医源性桡神经损伤率及感染率上,两者差异无统计学意义。而骨折愈合时间因文献未提供详细数据未能做Meta分析。结论与钢板内固定相比,髓内钉固定治疗成人肱骨干骨折的二次手术率更高,造成肩部疼痛及肩关节活动障碍更明显。而在骨折不愈合率、医源性桡神经损伤率及感染率上,两组差异无统计学意义。因本系统评价纳入的病例数较少,尚需更多设计严格的大样本随机对照研究来增加证据的强度。

Intramedullary Nailing or Compression Plates for Humeral Shaft Fractures in Adults: A Systematic Review

Objective To determine the efficacy and complication rate of intramedullary nailing versus compression plate in the treatment of adult humeral shaft fracture. Methods We searched the specialized trials register of The Cochrane Collaboration's Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group, The Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2006), EMbase (1980 to 2006), PubMed (1966 to 2006), NRR (http://www.update-software.com/National/), CCT (http://www.controlled-trials.com) and CBMdisc (1979 to July 2006). We also handsearched some Chinese orthopedic journals. Data were extracted and evaluated by two reviewers independently. Randomize controlled trials comparing intramedullary nailing versus compression plate for humeral shaft fracture in adults were included and the quality of these trials was critically assessed. Data analyses were done using The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 4.2.8. Results Three randomize controlled trials involving 215 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that intramedullary nailing may increase the re-operation rate (OR=2.68, 95%CI 1.19 to 6.04, P=0.02), pain in the shoulder (OR=13.02, 95%CI 2.23 to 75.95, P=0.004), and the rate of decreased range of motion of the shoulder (OR=18.60, 95%CI 1.01 to 341.83, P=0.05). The rates of no union, infection and iatrogenic radial nerve injury were comparable between intramedullary nailing and compression plate. Meta-analysis was not conducted for the time of union, because the relevant data were not available for the included trials. Conclusions Further well-designed and large-scale randomize controlled trials are required to determine the effects of intramedullary nailing and compression plate on these outcomes, because the trials available for this systematic review are too few and too small.