4.6 Review

External Fixation vs Intramedullary Nailing for Knee Arthrodesis After Failed Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 1288-1295

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.10.055

关键词

knee; arthrodesis; arthroplasty; external fixator; intramedullary; infection

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research [CL-2016-13-004, ACF-2015-13-017] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of this study is to compare intramedullary nailing with external fixation for knee arthrodesis after failed infected total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Primary outcome is radiographic union. Secondary outcomes include recurrent deep infection, revision arthrodesis, and amputation. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes from intramedullary nailing and external fixation in patients with infected TKA undergoing arthrodesis procedures was performed. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were included. Results: Intramedullary nailing achieves a significantly higher rate of radiographic union compared with external fixation (odds ratio [OR] 5.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.74-9.75, P < .00001) at a mean follow-up of 44.22 months. There is no significant difference in the rate of recurrent deep infection (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.38-2.15, P = .83) or amputation (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.23-3.84, P = .93). The rate of revision arthrodesis procedures is significantly lower for intramedullary nailing compared with external fixation (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.93, P = .04). Conclusion: Intramedullary nailing is more effective than external fixation with respect to several clinically important outcomes. Therefore, we recommend intramedullary nailing for achieving knee arthrodesis as a salvage procedure for infected TKA in the absence of specific indications for external fixation. (c) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据