Return to sport following navicular stress fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of three hundred and fifteen fractures.
Athletes
Conservative management
Navicular stress fracture
Operative management
Return to play
Tarsal navicular
Journal
International orthopaedics
ISSN: 1432-5195
Titre abrégé: Int Orthop
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 7705431
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
received:
25
04
2021
accepted:
16
07
2021
pubmed:
21
8
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
entrez:
20
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This meta-analysis aims to provide updated evidence on the success rate, return to play (RTP) rate, time to RTP, and complications of operatively and conservatively managed navicular stress fractures (NSFs) as well as delays in diagnosis while avoiding limitations of previous similar studies. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, two independent team members electronically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Google Scholar, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases throughout February 2021 using the following keywords with their synonyms: "Navicular stress fracture," "return to play," and "athletes." The primary outcomes were (1) management success rate, (2) RTP rate, and (3) time to RTP. The secondary outcomes were (1) non-union, (2) time to diagnosis, (3) refracture, and (4) other complications. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies on NSFs reporting at least one of the desirable outcomes. Studies not reporting any of the outcomes of interest or the full text was not available in English, German, French, or Arabic were excluded. Case reports, case series with less than ten cases, and studies reporting exclusively on navicular non-union management were also excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for quality assessment while Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.4 was used for the risk of bias assessment. Data were presented by type of treatment (surgical or conservative). If enough studies were present that were clinically and statistically homogeneous and data on them adequately reported, a meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effects model. In case of statistical heterogeneity, a random-effects model was used. If meta-analysis was not possible, results were reported in a descriptive fashion. The need to explore for statistical heterogeneity was determined by an I Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 315 NSF. Out of those, 307 (97.46%) NSFs were in athletes. One hundred eight (34.29%) NSFs were managed operatively, while 207 (65.71%) NSFs were managed conservatively. Successful outcomes were reported in 104/108 (96.30%) NSF treated operatively with a mean success rate of 97.9% (CI: 95.4-100%, I Operative management of NSF provides a higher success rate, a lower refracture rate, and a lower non-union rate as compared to other non-operative management options. While not significant, there is a notable trend towards superior RTP rates and time to RTP following operative management. Therefore, we recommend operative fixation for all NSFs type I through III in athletes. Athletes continue to exhibit an alarmingly long duration of symptoms before diagnosis is made; a high index of suspicion must be maintained, therefore, and adjunct CT imaging is strongly recommended in the case of any work-up. Unfortunately, the published literature on NSFs remains of lower level of evidence and high-quality studies are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34415421
doi: 10.1007/s00264-021-05147-6
pii: 10.1007/s00264-021-05147-6
pmc: PMC8514373
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2699-2710Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Am J Sports Med. 2010 May;38(5):1048-53
pubmed: 20197494
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Apr 20;6(4):2325967118767363
pubmed: 29780837
Br J Sports Med. 2006 Aug;40(8):692-5; discussion 695
pubmed: 16611725
Radiology. 1983 Sep;148(3):641-5
pubmed: 6224230
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Oct;38(10):NP3-5; author reply NP5
pubmed: 20889958
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021 Feb 15;29(4):148-157
pubmed: 33512847
Foot Ankle Clin. 2004 Mar;9(1):85-104
pubmed: 15062216
Orthop J Sports Med. 2017 Aug 18;5(8):2325967117723285
pubmed: 28840151
Sports Med. 2011 Aug 1;41(8):613-9
pubmed: 21780848
Am J Sports Med. 1992 Nov-Dec;20(6):657-66
pubmed: 1456359
Br J Sports Med. 2015 Dec;49(23):1517-23
pubmed: 26582192
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2000 Mar-Apr;39(2):96-103
pubmed: 10789100
Am J Sports Med. 1996 Nov-Dec;24(6):810-8
pubmed: 8947404
Am J Sports Med. 2005 Dec;33(12):1875-81
pubmed: 16157855
Foot Ankle Int. 2006 Nov;27(11):917-21
pubmed: 17144953
Sports Med. 1994 Jan;17(1):65-76
pubmed: 8153501
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982 Jun;64(5):700-12
pubmed: 7085695
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970 Mar;52(2):376-8
pubmed: 4985813
Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1983;204:1-269
pubmed: 6582753
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Aug;39(8):1741-8
pubmed: 21515805
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995 Jan;(310):145-9
pubmed: 7641431
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017 Sep - Oct;56(5):943-948
pubmed: 28842101
Am J Sports Med. 2021 Oct;49(12):3422-3436
pubmed: 33740393
Foot Ankle Int. 2012 Oct;33(10):857-61
pubmed: 23050710
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1997;83(2):133-8
pubmed: 9231180