[Screw versus Kirschner wire fixation for lateral humeral condyle fractures in children:a meta analysis].

OBJECTIVE: To compare screw versus Kirschner wire fixation in the treatment of lateral humeral condyle fractures in children. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Internet(CNKI), Wanfang Datebase from in ception to February 2022. Studies comparing screws and Kirschner wire fixation in the treatment of lateral humeral condyle fractures in children were included. Outcome measures included and excluded by a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria and evaluated for their quality, their excellent and good rate of fracture healing, malunion, delayed union or nonunion, infection, limitation of elbow flexion or extension(>10°) were extracted and analyzed using software Rev Man 5.3. RESULTS: A total of 9 retrospective studies involving 647 patients were included, with 255 patients in the screw fixation group(including screw combined with Kirschner wire) and 392 patients in the Kirschner wire fixation group. Meta analysis showed the following:infection rate in the screw group was significantly lower than that in the Kirschner wire group[OR=0.22, 95%CI(0.09, 0.56), P=0.001]. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in excellent and good rate of fracture healing, malunion rate(P>0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that infection rate in the screw-only group was significantly lower than that in the Kirschner wire group[OR=0.18, 95%CI(0.05, 0.65), P=0.009]. CONCLUSION: For lateral humeral condyle fractures, Screw fixation alone had a lower infection rate than kirschner wire fixation and screw combined with Kirschner wire fixation. There were no significant differences in the excellent and good rate of fracture healing, malunion. In terms of postoperative efficacy and safety of internal fixation, orthopaedic surgeons are more likely to recommend screws for fixation of lateral humeral condyle fractures in children.

[Meta-analysis of different joint interfaces in total hip arthroplasty under long-term follow-up].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term follow-up effect and complications of ceramic on ceramic (CoC) interface and ceramic on polyethyleneon ceramic (CoP) interface in primary total hip arthroplasty, and provide clinical evidence. METHODS: Search PubMed, EMBase, the CoChrane Library databases, Web of science, Wanfang database, and CNKI from January 2000 to September 2021, screening and inclusion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the long-term efficacy and complications of CoC interface and CoP interface in total hip arthroplasty. Literature screening, quality evaluation and data extraction were carried out according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, using Review Manager 5.3 statistical software. The software was used to perform statistical analysis on joint function, revision, prosthesis fracture, abnormal joint noise, and prosthesis wear rate after CoC or CoP. RESULTS: Seven RCTs studies were included, including 390 cases of hips with CoC artificial joints and 384 cases of hips with CoP artificial joints. The long-term joint function improvement of CoC and CoP artificial joints was similar and there was no significant differences, with an average difference was MD=0.63, 95%CI=(-1.81, 3.07), P=0.61. About the postoperative complications, CoC artificial joints have higher incidence rate of abnormal joint noise, with odds ratio (OR)=11.05, 95%CI=(2.04, 59.84), P=0.005. CoP artificial joints wear faster, with an average MD=-87.11, 95%CI=(-114.40, -59.82), P<0.000 1. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the replacement-related complications such as joint dislocation, prosthesis loosening, osteolysis, and the rate of prosthesis revision caused by various reasons. CONCLUSION: The clinical function results and complications of CoC artificial joints are comparable to those of CoP artificial joints. Although CoP artificial joint prosthesis has a faster wear rate, it does not affect joint function and increase complications, and there is no abnormal joint noise. CoC is expensive and the long-term efficacy is equivalent to CoP. Clinicians should consider cost performance when choosing CoC.