Intramedullary fixation versus plate fixation for displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures

Intramedullary fixation versus plate fixation for displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures AbstractBackground:Displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures (DMCFs) are common injuries. Both intramedullary fixation (IMF) and plate fixation (PF) have been described and routinely used. Multiple trials have been conducted to compare these treatments. Multiple meta-analyses have been published to compare IMF and PF treatment for DMCFs; however, the results remain controversial. The purposes of this study were to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing IMF and PF treatment for DMCFs, to help decision makers critically evaluate the current meta-analyses, and to propose a guide through the best available evidence.Method:We searched the Cochrane library, PubMed, and EMBASE data bases. Two authors independently scanned titles and abstracts to exclude irrelevant articles and identify meta-analyses that met the eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of the meta-analysis was independently assessed by the 2 authors using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Heterogeneity information of each variable was extracted from the included studies. An I2 of <60% is accepted in this systematic review. The Jadad algorithm was then applied to determine which of the meta-analyses provided the best evidence.Results:Eight meta-analysis met the inclusion criteria in this study. AMSTAR scores varied from 7 to 9. Heterogeneity of each outcome was acceptable. Four authors independently selected the same meta-analysis as providing the highest quality of evidence using the Jadad decision algorithm.Conclusion:This systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses suggests that compared with PF, major reintervention and refracture after implant removal occurred more frequently after PF of DMCFs. No differences in terms of function and non-union between PF and IMF were observed. Future research should focus on fracture selection for IMF and further improvement of plates and IM devices. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Medicine Wolters Kluwer Health

Intramedullary fixation versus plate fixation for displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wolters_kluwer/intramedullary-fixation-versus-plate-fixation-for-displaced-mid-shaft-ma3REwdxi6
Publisher
Wolters Kluwer
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
ISSN
0025-7974
eISSN
1536-5964
D.O.I.
10.1097/MD.0000000000009752
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AbstractBackground:Displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures (DMCFs) are common injuries. Both intramedullary fixation (IMF) and plate fixation (PF) have been described and routinely used. Multiple trials have been conducted to compare these treatments. Multiple meta-analyses have been published to compare IMF and PF treatment for DMCFs; however, the results remain controversial. The purposes of this study were to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing IMF and PF treatment for DMCFs, to help decision makers critically evaluate the current meta-analyses, and to propose a guide through the best available evidence.Method:We searched the Cochrane library, PubMed, and EMBASE data bases. Two authors independently scanned titles and abstracts to exclude irrelevant articles and identify meta-analyses that met the eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of the meta-analysis was independently assessed by the 2 authors using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Heterogeneity information of each variable was extracted from the included studies. An I2 of <60% is accepted in this systematic review. The Jadad algorithm was then applied to determine which of the meta-analyses provided the best evidence.Results:Eight meta-analysis met the inclusion criteria in this study. AMSTAR scores varied from 7 to 9. Heterogeneity of each outcome was acceptable. Four authors independently selected the same meta-analysis as providing the highest quality of evidence using the Jadad decision algorithm.Conclusion:This systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses suggests that compared with PF, major reintervention and refracture after implant removal occurred more frequently after PF of DMCFs. No differences in terms of function and non-union between PF and IMF were observed. Future research should focus on fracture selection for IMF and further improvement of plates and IM devices.

Journal

MedicineWolters Kluwer Health

Published: Jan 1, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve Freelancer

DeepDyve Pro

Price
FREE
$49/month

$360/year
Save searches from Google Scholar, PubMed
Create lists to organize your research
Export lists, citations
Read DeepDyve articles
Abstract access only
Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles
Print
20 pages/month
PDF Discount
20% off