Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
1.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 6: CD013609, 2022 06 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35678077

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Elbow supracondylar fractures are common, with treatment decisions based on fracture displacement. However, there remains controversy regarding the best treatments for this injury. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions for treating supracondylar elbow fractures in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in March 2021. We also searched trial registers and reference lists. We applied no language or publication restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing different interventions for the treatment of supracondylar elbow fractures in children. We included studies investigating surgical interventions (different fixation techniques and different reduction techniques), surgical versus non-surgical treatment, traction types, methods of non-surgical intervention, and timing and location of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data and conducted GRADE assessment for five critical outcomes: functional outcomes, treatment failure (requiring re-intervention), nerve injury, major complications (pin site infection in most studies), and cosmetic deformity (cubitus varus).  MAIN RESULTS: We included 52 trials with 3594 children who had supracondylar elbow fractures; most were Gartland 2 and 3 fractures. The mean ages of children ranged from 4.9 to 8.4 years and the majority of participants were boys. Most studies (33) were conducted in countries in South-East Asia. We identified 12 different comparisons of interventions: retrograde lateral wires versus retrograde crossed wires; lateral crossed (Dorgan) wires versus retrograde crossed wires; retrograde lateral wires versus lateral crossed (Dorgan) wires; retrograde crossed wires versus posterior intrafocal wires; retrograde lateral wires in a parallel versus divergent configuration; retrograde crossed wires using a mini-open technique or inserted percutaneously; buried versus non-buried wires; external versus internal fixation; open versus closed reduction; surgical fixation versus non-surgical immobilisation; skeletal versus skin traction; and collar and cuff versus backslab. We report here the findings of four comparisons that represent the most substantial body of evidence for the most clinically relevant comparisons.  All studies in these four comparisons had unclear risks of bias in at least one domain. We downgraded the certainty of all outcomes for serious risks of bias, for imprecision when evidence was derived from a small sample size or had a wide confidence interval (CI) that included the possibility of benefits or harms for both treatments, and when we detected the possibility of publication bias.  Retrograde lateral wires versus retrograde crossed wires (29 studies, 2068 children) There was low-certainty evidence of less nerve injury with retrograde lateral wires (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.90; 28 studies, 1653 children). In a post hoc subgroup analysis, we noted a greater difference in the number of children with nerve injuries when lateral wires were compared to crossed wires inserted with a  percutaneous medial wire technique (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.81, favours lateral wires; 10 studies, 552 children), but little difference when an open technique was used (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.40, favours lateral wires; 11 studies, 656 children). Although we noted a statistically significant difference between these subgroups from the interaction test (P = 0.05), we could not rule out the possibility that other factors could account for this difference. We found little or no difference between the interventions in major complications, which were described as pin site infections in all studies (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.79; 19 studies, 1126 children; low-certainty evidence). For functional status (1 study, 35 children), treatment failure requiring re-intervention (1 study, 60 children), and cosmetic deformity (2 studies, 95 children), there was very low-certainty evidence showing no evidence of a difference between interventions. Open reduction versus closed reduction (4 studies, 295 children) Type of reduction method may make little or no difference to nerve injuries (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.01, favours open reduction; 3 studies, 163 children). However, there may be fewer major complications (pin site infections) when closed reduction is used (RR 4.15, 95% CI 1.07 to 16.20; 4 studies, 253 children). The certainty of the evidence for these outcomes is low. No studies reported functional outcome, treatment failure requiring re-intervention, or cosmetic deformity. The four studies in this comparison used direct visualisation during surgery. One additional study used a joystick technique for reduction, and we did not combine data from this study in analyses. Surgical fixation using wires versus non-surgical immobilisation using a cast (3 studies, 140 children) There was very low-certainty evidence showing little or no difference between interventions for treatment failure requiring re-intervention (1 study, 60 children), nerve injury (3 studies, 140 children), major complications (3 studies, 126 children), and cosmetic deformity (2 studies, 80 children). No studies reported functional outcome. Backslab versus sling (1 study, 50 children) No nerve injuries or major complications were experienced by children in either group; this evidence is of very low certainty. Functional outcome, treatment failure, and cosmetic deformity were not reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence for many treatments of supracondylar fractures. Fixation of displaced supracondylar fractures with retrograde lateral wires compared with crossed wires provided the most substantial body of evidence in this review, and our findings indicate that there may be a lower risk of nerve injury with retrograde lateral wires. In future trials of treatments, we would encourage the adoption of a core outcome set, which includes patient-reported measures. Evaluation of the effectiveness of traction compared with surgical fixation would provide a valuable addition to this clinical field.


Asunto(s)
Fijación de Fractura , Fracturas Óseas , Niño , Preescolar , Codo , Femenino , Fijación de Fractura/métodos , Fijación Interna de Fracturas , Humanos , Masculino , Férulas (Fijadores)
2.
Bone Jt Open ; 2(11): 958-965, 2021 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34781709

RESUMEN

AIMS: Deep surgical site infection (SSI) remains an unsolved problem after hip fracture. Debridement, antibiotic, and implant retention (DAIR) has become a mainstream treatment in elective periprosthetic joint infection; however, evidence for DAIR after infected hip hemiarthroplaty is limited. METHODS: Patients who underwent a hemiarthroplasty between March 2007 and August 2018 were reviewed. Multivariable binary logistic regression was performed to identify and adjust for risk factors for SSI, and to identify factors predicting a successful DAIR at one year. RESULTS: A total of 3,966 patients were identified. The overall rate of SSI was 1.7% (51 patients (1.3%) with deep SSI, and 18 (0.45%) with superficial SSI). In all, 50 patients underwent revision surgery for infection (43 with DAIR, and seven with excision arthroplasty). After adjustment for other variables, only concurrent urinary tract infection (odds ratio (OR) 2.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 4.92; p < 0.001) and increasing delay to theatre for treatment of the fracture (OR 1.31 per day, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.52; p < 0.001) were predictors of developing a SSI, while a cemented arthroplasty was protective (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.96; p = 0.031). In all, nine patients (20.9%) were alive at one year with a functioning hemiarthroplasty following DAIR, 20 (46.5%) required multiple surgical debridements after an initial DAIR, and 18 were converted to an excision arthroplasty due to persistent infection, with six were alive at one year. The culture of any gram-negative organism reduced success rates to 12.5% (no cases were successful with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas infection). Favourable organisms included Citrobacter and Proteus (100% cure rate). The all-cause mortality at one year after deep SSI was 55.87% versus 24.9% without deep infection. CONCLUSION: Deep infection remains a devastating complication regardless of the treatment strategy employed. Success rates of DAIR are poor compared to total hip arthroplasty, and should be reserved for favourable organisms in patients able to tolerate multiple surgical procedures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):958-965.

3.
Bone Joint J ; 103-B(5): 902-907, 2021 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33709769

RESUMEN

AIMS: The management of completely displaced fractures of the distal radius in children remains controversial. This study evaluates the outcomes of surgical and non-surgical management of 'off-ended' fractures in children with at least two years of potential growth remaining. METHODS: A total of 34 boys and 22 girls aged 0 to ten years with a closed, completely displaced metaphyseal distal radial fracture presented between 1 November 2015 and 1 January 2020. After 2018, children aged ten or under were offered treatment in a straight plaster or manipulation under anaesthesia with Kirschner (K-)wire stabilization. Case notes and radiographs were reviewed to evaluate outcomes. In all, 16 underwent treatment in a straight cast and 40 had manipulation under anaesthesia, including 37 stabilized with K-wires. RESULTS: Of the children treated in a straight cast, all were discharged with good range of mo (ROM). Five children were discharged at six to 12 weeks with no functional limitations at six-month follow-up. A total of 11 children were discharged between 12 and 50 weeks with a normal ROM and radiological evidence of remodelling. One child had a subsequent diaphyseal fracture proximal to the original injury four years after the initial fracture. Re-displacement with angulation greater than 10° occurred for 17 children who had manipulation under anaesthesia. Four had a visible cosmetic deformity at discharge and nine had restriction of movement, with four requiring physiotherapy. One child developed over- granulation at the pin site and one wire became buried, resulting in a difficult retrieval in clinic. No children had pin site infections. CONCLUSION: Nonoperative management of completely displaced distal radial fractures in appropriately selected cases results in excellent outcomes without exposing the child to the risks of surgery. This study suggests that nonoperative management of these injuries is a viable and potentially underused strategy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):902-907.


Asunto(s)
Anestesia/métodos , Moldes Quirúrgicos , Fijación de Fractura/métodos , Manipulación Ortopédica , Fracturas del Radio/terapia , Hilos Ortopédicos , Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Masculino , Fracturas del Radio/diagnóstico por imagen
4.
J Hand Surg Eur Vol ; : 1753193420983719, 2021 01 24.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33487059

RESUMEN

This study identifies the treatment outcome domains used in recently published studies on the treatment of hand fractures and joint injuries with the aim to inform development of a core outcome set. Seven databases were searched from January 2014 to March 2019 for randomized and quasi-randomized studies and large prospective observational studies. We identified 1777 verbatim outcomes in 160 eligible studies. From the verbatim outcomes we distinguished 639 unique outcomes, which we categorized into 74 outcome domains based on the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework. The primary outcome was appropriately identified in only 65% (72/110) of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Of the 72 studies with a primary outcome identified, 74% (53/72) had an appropriate power calculation. The vast heterogeneity in outcome selection across studies highlights the need for a core outcome set of what outcomes to measure in future clinical research on hand fractures and joint injuries.

5.
Surgeon ; 19(5): e132-e139, 2021 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33039336

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The provision of facemasks must be prioritised when supplies are interrupted. These include supplies to operating rooms. The aim of this review is to evaluate the available evidence to determine the relative priority for the provision of facemasks in operating rooms to prevent surgical site infection. METHODS: A systematic search of OVID Medline, Embase & Cochrane Central was completed. Candidate full-text articles were identified and analysed by two reviewers who also assessed risk of bias. FINDINGS: Six studies were identified that described infections with and without facemask usage. The pooled effect of not wearing facemasks was a risk ratio for infection of 0.77 (0.62-0.97) in favour of not wearing masks. Only one case-controlled study evaluated facemask usage in implant surgery and demonstrated an odds ratio for developing infection of 3.34 (95% CI 1.94-5.74) if facemasks were not worn by the operating surgeon. Four studies collected microbiological cultures during periods in surgery with or without facemasks. Two demonstrated an increase in colony forming units in surgery where the wound was directly below the surgeon. One study showed equivocal results when masks were worn, and one was terminated early limiting interpretation. CONCLUSION: The use of facemasks by scrubbed staff during implant surgery should be mandatory to prevent infection. We recommend the use of facemasks by all scrubbed staff during other forms of surgery to protect the patient and staff, but the supporting evidence is weak. There is insufficient evidence to show that non-scrubbed staff must wear masks during surgery.


Asunto(s)
Máscaras , Cirujanos , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Humanos , Quirófanos , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/prevención & control
6.
Curr Opin Pediatr ; 31(1): 86-91, 2019 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30461510

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The management of displaced medial humeral epicondyle fractures in children remains controversial. The indications for surgery, the ideal surgical strategy and the implications of a painful nonunion remain unclear. RECENT FINDINGS: This article describes the state of the evidence and the art in the management of medial humeral epicondyle fractures concentrating on recent research and current opinion. Treatment of paediatric medial epicondylar fractures of the elbow remains the domain of expert opinion and subject to great variance. Anatomical, biomechanical and computer simulation models suggest great importance should be given to the medial epicondyle and the structures, which insert onto it. However, this does not correlate with outcomes as reported by patients, parents and surgeons. SUMMARY: The question of which paediatric medial humeral epicondylar fractures benefit from operative fixation remains unanswered. A large randomized prospective trial is required.


Asunto(s)
Simulación por Computador , Articulación del Codo , Fijación de Fractura , Fracturas del Húmero , Niño , Fijación de Fractura/métodos , Humanos , Fracturas del Húmero/cirugía , Húmero , Estudios Prospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA