2
|
Woolnough T, Axelrod D, Bozzo A, Koziarz A, Koziarz F, Oitment C, Gyemi L, Gormley J, Gouveia K, Johal H. What Is the Relative Effectiveness of the Various Surgical Treatment Options for Distal Radius Fractures? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2021; 479:348-362. [PMID: 33165042 PMCID: PMC7899542 DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000001524] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2020] [Accepted: 09/14/2020] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many acceptable treatment options exist for distal radius fractures (DRFs); however, a simultaneous comparison of all methods is difficult using conventional study designs. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on DRF treatment to answer the following questions: Compared with nonoperative treatment, (1) which intervention is associated with the best 1-year functional outcome? (2) Which intervention is associated with the lowest risk of overall complications? (3) Which intervention is associated with the lowest risk of complications requiring operation? METHODS Ten databases were searched from inception to July 25, 2019. Search and analysis reporting adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Included studies were English-language RCTs that assessed at least one surgical treatment arm for adult patients with displaced DRFs, with less than 20% loss to follow-up. We excluded RCTs reporting on patients with open fractures, extensive bone loss, or ipsilateral upper extremity polytrauma. Seventy RCTs (n = 4789 patients) were included. Treatments compared were the volar locking plate, bridging external fixation, nonbridging external fixation, dynamic external fixation, percutaneous pinning, intramedullary fixation, dorsal plating, fragment-specific plating, and nonoperative treatment. Subgroup analyses were conducted for intraarticular fractures, extraarticular fractures, and patients with an average age greater than 60 years. Mean (range) patient age was 59 years (56 to 63) and was similar across all treatment groups except for dynamic external fixation (44 years) and fragment-specific plating (47 years). Distribution of intraarticular and extraarticular fractures was approximately equal among the treatment groups other than that for intramedullary fixation (73% extraarticular), fragment-specific plating (66% intraarticular) [13, 70], and dorsal plating (100% intraarticular). Outcomes were the DASH score at 1 year, total complications, and reoperation. The minimum clinically important different (MCID) for the DASH score was set at 10 points. The analysis was performed using Bayesian methodology with random-effects models. Rank orders were generated using surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. Evidence quality was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Most studies had a low risk of bias due to randomization and low rates of incomplete follow-up, unclear risk of bias due to selective reporting, and high risk of bias due to lack of patient and assessor blinding. Studies assessing bridging external fixation and/or nonoperative treatment arms had a higher overall risk of bias while studies with volar plating and/or percutaneous pinning treatment arms had a lower risk of bias. RESULTS Across all patients, there were no clinically important differences in terms of the DASH score at 1 year; although differences were found, all were less than the MCID of 10 points. Volar plating was ranked the highest for DASH score at 1 year (mean difference -7.34 [95% credible interval -11 to -3.7) while intramedullary fixation, with low-quality evidence, also showed improvement in DASH score (mean difference -7.75 [95% CI -14.6 to -0.56]). The subgroup analysis revealed that only locked volar plating was favored over nonoperative treatment for patients older than 60 years of age (mean difference -6.4 [95% CI -11 to -2.1]) and for those with intraarticular fractures (mean difference -8.4 [95% CI -15 to -2.0]). However, its clinical importance was uncertain as the MCID was not met. Among all patients, intramedullary fixation (odds ratio 0.09 [95% CI 0.02 to 0.84]) and locked volar plating (OR 0.14 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.39]) were associated with a lower complication risk compared with nonoperative treatment. For intraarticular fractures, volar plating was the only treatment associated with a lower risk of complications than nonoperative treatment (OR 0.021 [95% CI < 0.01 to 0.50]). For extraarticular fractures, only nonbridging external fixation was associated with a lower risk of complications than nonoperative treatment (OR 0.011 [95% CI < 0.01 to 0.65]), although the quality of evidence was low. Among all patients, the risk of complications requiring operation was lower with intramedullary fixation (OR 0.06 [95% CI < 0.01 to 0.85) than with nonoperative treatment, but no treatment was favored over nonoperative treatment when analyzed by subgroups. CONCLUSION We found no clinically important differences favoring any surgical treatment option with respect to 1-year functional outcome. However, relative to the other options, volar plating was associated with a lower complication risk, particularly in patients with intraarticular fractures, while nonbridging external fixation was associated with a lower complication risk in patients with extraarticular fractures. For patients older than 60 years of age, nonoperative treatment may still be the preferred option because there is no reliable evidence showing a consistent decrease in complications or complications requiring operation among the other treatment options. Particularly in this age group, the decision to expose patients to even a single surgery should be made with caution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level I, therapeutic study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Taylor Woolnough
- T. Woolnough, L. Gyemi, J. Gormley, K. Gouveia, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- D. Axelrod, A. Bozzo, C. Oitment, H. Johal, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Bozzo, H. Johal, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Koziarz, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- F. Koziarz, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Daniel Axelrod
- T. Woolnough, L. Gyemi, J. Gormley, K. Gouveia, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- D. Axelrod, A. Bozzo, C. Oitment, H. Johal, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Bozzo, H. Johal, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Koziarz, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- F. Koziarz, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Anthony Bozzo
- T. Woolnough, L. Gyemi, J. Gormley, K. Gouveia, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- D. Axelrod, A. Bozzo, C. Oitment, H. Johal, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Bozzo, H. Johal, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Koziarz, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- F. Koziarz, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Alex Koziarz
- T. Woolnough, L. Gyemi, J. Gormley, K. Gouveia, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- D. Axelrod, A. Bozzo, C. Oitment, H. Johal, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Bozzo, H. Johal, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Koziarz, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- F. Koziarz, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Frank Koziarz
- T. Woolnough, L. Gyemi, J. Gormley, K. Gouveia, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- D. Axelrod, A. Bozzo, C. Oitment, H. Johal, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Bozzo, H. Johal, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Koziarz, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- F. Koziarz, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Colby Oitment
- T. Woolnough, L. Gyemi, J. Gormley, K. Gouveia, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- D. Axelrod, A. Bozzo, C. Oitment, H. Johal, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Bozzo, H. Johal, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Koziarz, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- F. Koziarz, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Lauren Gyemi
- T. Woolnough, L. Gyemi, J. Gormley, K. Gouveia, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- D. Axelrod, A. Bozzo, C. Oitment, H. Johal, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Bozzo, H. Johal, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Koziarz, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- F. Koziarz, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Jessica Gormley
- T. Woolnough, L. Gyemi, J. Gormley, K. Gouveia, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- D. Axelrod, A. Bozzo, C. Oitment, H. Johal, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Bozzo, H. Johal, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Koziarz, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- F. Koziarz, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Kyle Gouveia
- T. Woolnough, L. Gyemi, J. Gormley, K. Gouveia, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- D. Axelrod, A. Bozzo, C. Oitment, H. Johal, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Bozzo, H. Johal, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Koziarz, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- F. Koziarz, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Herman Johal
- T. Woolnough, L. Gyemi, J. Gormley, K. Gouveia, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- D. Axelrod, A. Bozzo, C. Oitment, H. Johal, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Bozzo, H. Johal, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- A. Koziarz, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- F. Koziarz, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Skou ST, Juhl CB, Hare KB, Lohmander LS, Roos EM. Surgical or non-surgical treatment of traumatic skeletal fractures in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits and harms. Syst Rev 2020; 9:179. [PMID: 32792014 PMCID: PMC7425058 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-020-01424-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2020] [Accepted: 07/10/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND A comprehensive overview of treatments of common fractures is missing, although it would be important for shared decision-making in clinical practice. The aim was to determine benefits and harms of surgical compared to non-surgical treatments for traumatic skeletal fractures. METHODS We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL until November 2018, for randomized trials of surgical treatment in comparison with or in addition to non-surgical treatment of fractures in adults. For harms, only trials with patient enrollment in 2000 or later were included, while no time restriction was applied to benefits. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data from full-text trials, and performed risk of bias assessment. Outcomes were self-reported pain, function, and quality of life, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Random effects model (Hedges' g) was used. RESULTS Out of 28375 records screened, we included 61 trials and performed meta-analysis on 12 fracture types in 11 sites: calcaneus, clavicula, femur, humerus, malleolus, metacarpus, metatarsus, radius, rib, scaphoideum, and thoraco-lumbar spine. Seven other fracture types only had one trial available. For distal radius fractures, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was 0.31 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.53, n = 378 participants) for function, favoring surgery, however, with greater risk of SAEs (RR = 3.10 (1.42 to 6.77), n = 436). For displaced intra-articular calcaneus fractures, SMD was 0.64 (0.13 to 1.16) for function (n = 244) and 0.19 (0.01 to 0.36) for quality of life (n = 506) favoring surgery. Surgery was associated with a smaller risk of SAE than non-surgical treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures (RR = 0.62 (0.42 to 0.92), n = 1394). None of the other comparisons showed statistical significance differences and insufficient data existed for most of the common fracture types. CONCLUSIONS Of 12 fracture types with more than one trial, only two demonstrated a difference in favor of surgery (distal radius fractures and displaced intra-articular calcaneus fractures), one of which demonstrated a greater risk of harms in the surgical group (distal radius fractures). Our results highlight the current paucity of high-quality randomized trials for common fracture types and a considerable heterogeneity and risk of bias in several of the available trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42015020805.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Søren T Skou
- Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. .,Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, Region Zealand, Slagelse, Denmark.
| | - Carsten B Juhl
- Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Rehabilitation, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark
| | - Kristoffer B Hare
- Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, Region Zealand, Slagelse, Denmark.,Department of Orthopedics, Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, Region Zealand, Slagelse, Denmark.,Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - L Stefan Lohmander
- Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Orthopedics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Ewa M Roos
- Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mellstrand Navarro C, Brolund A, Ekholm C, Heintz E, Hoxha Ekström E, Josefsson PO, Leander L, Nordström P, Zidén L, Stenström K. Treatment of radius or ulna fractures in the elderly: A systematic review covering effectiveness, safety, economic aspects and current practice. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0214362. [PMID: 30921377 PMCID: PMC6438530 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214362] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/10/2018] [Accepted: 03/12/2019] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The objective of the present study was to evaluate effectiveness, complications and cost-effectiveness of any surgical or non-surgical treatment for radius or ulna fractures in elderly patients. Secondary objectives were to analyze present treatment traditions of distal radius fractures (DRF) in Sweden and to calculate resource usage for its treatment. Methods and findings The assessment contains a systematic review of clinical and health economic studies comparing treatment options for radius or ulna fractures. The results regarding the effectiveness of the treatments are summarized in meta-analyses. In addition, the assessment contains a cost analysis for different treatment options commonly used for DRF care, and an analysis of registry data on the incidence and treatment of DRF. In total 31 randomized controlled trials were included in meta-analyses. When comparing functional outcome for plate fixation versus non-surgical treatment for DRF, there were no clinically important differences at one-year follow-up (mean difference [MD], -3.29, 95% CI, -7.03; 0.44). Similar results were found when comparing plating and percutaneous methods with respect to functional outcome (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.07, 95% CI, -0.21; 0.07) and grip strength (MD, -3.47, 95% CI, -11.21; 4.28). There were no differences for minor complications, (risk difference [RD], -0.01, 95% CI, -0.07; 0.05) whereas major complications were less common for the percutaneous group, (RD, 0.02, 95% CI, 0.02; 0.03). Given the low number of studies, the evidence above was rated as moderate certainty. The cost for plate fixation versus plaster cast was estimated to 1698 compared to 137 US dollars. For DRF, plate fixation increased in Sweden between 2005 and 2013, and was the most common surgical method in 2013. Conclusions Surgical treatment of moderately displaced distal radius fractures in elderly patients offers no clear benefit compared to non-surgical treatment. Plating procedures have become more common during the second millennium and involve higher costs and higher risk of major complications than percutaneous options.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cecilia Mellstrand Navarro
- Department of Hand Surgery, Karolinska Institute, Institution for Clinical Research and Education, Södersjukhuset Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
- * E-mail:
| | - Agneta Brolund
- Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Carl Ekholm
- Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden
| | - Emelie Heintz
- Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Emin Hoxha Ekström
- Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - Lina Leander
- Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Peter Nordström
- Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Geriatrics, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Lena Zidén
- Department of Health and Rehabilitation, The Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Karin Stenström
- Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|