Clinical outcomes in the surgical management of ankle fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of fibular intramedullary nail fixation vs. open reduction and internal fixation in randomized controlled trials.
Ankle fracture
Ankle joint
Fibula
Fibular nail
Intramedullary nail (IMN)
Journal
Foot and ankle surgery : official journal of the European Society of Foot and Ankle Surgeons
ISSN: 1460-9584
Titre abrégé: Foot Ankle Surg
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9609647
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
15
10
2021
revised:
30
01
2022
accepted:
15
03
2022
pubmed:
28
3
2022
medline:
5
10
2022
entrez:
27
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
What level I evidence exists to support the use of FNF for surgical management of ankle fractures in high risk patients? The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes following fibular intramedullary nail fixation (FNF) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of ankle fractures. A systematic review of the current literature was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Certainty of evidence reported according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Our primary hypothesis was that patients undergoing FNF procedures to manage an ankle fracture would have significantly higher patient reported outcome scores (PROs) than patients undergoing ORIF. Primary study outcome measures were validated PROs. Secondary outcome measures included complication rate, secondary surgery rate, and bony union. The primary outcome analysis revealed no evidence of a significant effect difference on Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) PRO and no evidence of statistical heterogeneity. Secondary outcome analysis revealed a significant 0.30 (0.12-0.74 95CI) relative risk reduction for complications in FNF (P = 0.008). No evidence of an effect difference for bony union. The GRADE certainty of the evidence was rated as low for bone union. No evidence of reporting bias was appreciated. Sensitivity analyses did not significantly alter effect estimates. This systematic review and meta-analysis restricted to evidence derived from RCTs revealed that the quality of evidence is reasonably strong and likely sufficient to conclude: (1) there is likely no clinically important difference between FNF and ORIF up to 12 months post-operatively, as defined by OMS (moderate certainty); (2) surgeons may reasonably expect reduced complications in 14 out of every 100 patients treated with FNF (moderate certainty); (3) there is likely no difference in bony union (low certainty). Future studies should investigate more patient-centered outcomes and if short-term findings are durable over time if these findings apply to lower risk populations. Systematic review and meta-analysis of level I evidence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
What level I evidence exists to support the use of FNF for surgical management of ankle fractures in high risk patients? The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes following fibular intramedullary nail fixation (FNF) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of ankle fractures.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic review of the current literature was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Certainty of evidence reported according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Our primary hypothesis was that patients undergoing FNF procedures to manage an ankle fracture would have significantly higher patient reported outcome scores (PROs) than patients undergoing ORIF. Primary study outcome measures were validated PROs. Secondary outcome measures included complication rate, secondary surgery rate, and bony union.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The primary outcome analysis revealed no evidence of a significant effect difference on Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) PRO and no evidence of statistical heterogeneity. Secondary outcome analysis revealed a significant 0.30 (0.12-0.74 95CI) relative risk reduction for complications in FNF (P = 0.008). No evidence of an effect difference for bony union. The GRADE certainty of the evidence was rated as low for bone union. No evidence of reporting bias was appreciated. Sensitivity analyses did not significantly alter effect estimates.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis restricted to evidence derived from RCTs revealed that the quality of evidence is reasonably strong and likely sufficient to conclude: (1) there is likely no clinically important difference between FNF and ORIF up to 12 months post-operatively, as defined by OMS (moderate certainty); (2) surgeons may reasonably expect reduced complications in 14 out of every 100 patients treated with FNF (moderate certainty); (3) there is likely no difference in bony union (low certainty). Future studies should investigate more patient-centered outcomes and if short-term findings are durable over time if these findings apply to lower risk populations.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of level I evidence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35339374
pii: S1268-7731(22)00056-X
doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2022.03.009
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
836-844Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 European Foot and Ankle Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.