12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Dynamic hip screws versus cephalocondylic intramedullary nails for unstable extracapsular hip fractures in 2021: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Extracapsular hip fractures comprise approximately half of all hip fractures and the incidence of hip fractures is exponentially increasing. Extramedullary fixation using a dynamic hip screw (DHS) has been the gold standard method of operative treatment for unstable extracapsular fractures, however, in recent years, intramedullary nails (IMN) have become a popular alternative. IMN versus DHS is continuously discussed and debated in literature. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to directly compare the peri- and post-operative outcomes of these two techniques to provide an up-to-date analysis of which method of fixation is superior.

          Methods

          The MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Web of Science Database were searched for eligible studies from 2008 to April 2022 that compared peri- and post-operational outcomes for patients undergoing IMN or DHS operations for fixation of unstable extracapsular hip fractures (PROSPERO registration ID:CRD42021228335). Primary outcomes included mortality rate and re-operation rate. Secondary outcomes included operation time, blood loss, transfusion requirement, complication, and failure of fixation rate. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and GRADE analysis tool, respectively.

          Results

          Of the 6776 records identified, 22 studies involving 3151 patients were included in the final review. Our meta-analysis showed no significant differences between mortality rates (10 studies, OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, p = 0.88) or re-operation rates (10 studies, OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.64, p = 0.91) between the two procedures. There were also no significant differences found between complication rates (17 studies, OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.79 to 2.12, p = 0.31) and failure of fixation rates (14 studies, OR 1.32; 95% CI 0.74 to 2.38, p = 0.35). However, DHS operations had a significantly longer operation time (p < 0.0001) and blood loss (p < 0.00001) than IMN operations.

          Conclusion

          Overall, based on the outcomes assessed, this review has demonstrated that there is no significant difference in the post-operative outcomes for DHS vs IMN, however a significant difference exists in two of the intraoperative outcomes assessed in this review.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Projections of Primary and Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Orthop
                J Orthop
                Journal of Orthopaedics
                Elsevier
                0972-978X
                February 2023
                08 January 2023
                : 36
                : 88-98
                Affiliations
                [a ]GKT School of Medical Education, King's College London, London, UK
                [b ]University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire, NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
                [c ]Imperial College School of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
                [d ]Royal London Hospital, Barts NHS Trust, London, UK
                [e ]Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [f ]School of Medicine, University College London (UCL), London, UK
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Imperial College School of Medicine, Imperial College Road, London, SW7 2DD, UK. harroop.bola19@ 123456imperial.ac.uk
                [1]

                Both authors have contributed equally and should be recognised as co-first authors.

                Article
                S0972-978X(22)00298-7
                10.1016/j.jor.2022.12.015
                9841034
                36654796
                0b557742-9cfe-4f49-a2a8-32dff9f0e50d
                Crown Copyright © 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 1 October 2022
                : 15 December 2022
                : 29 December 2022
                Categories
                Article

                dynamic hip screw (dhs),intramedullary nail (imn),extracapsular fracture,meta-analysis,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article