摘要
目的:通过Meta分析的方法对Masquelet技术与Llizarov技术治疗感染性骨缺损的临床疗效及安全性进行系统评价。方法:计算机检索中国知网(CNKI)、万方(wanfang)、维普(VIP)、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、Pubmed、Medline、Cochrane Llibrary数据库,检索时间为建库至2020年1月,根据纳入和排除标准,收集有关使用Masquelet技术和Llizarov技术治疗感染性骨缺损的随机临床对照试验,然后由两名研究人员独立对检索到的文献进行筛选、评价和数据提取工作,然后使用Rev Man5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入10篇RCT文献,共496例患者,其中Masquelet组242例,Llizarov组254例。Meta分析的结果显示:在骨缺损愈合时间、完全负重时间、治疗费用、并发症发生率方面,Masquelet组与Llizarov组相比有显著性差异,Masquelet组优于Llizarov组(P<0.05);在膝关节Lowa评分、SF-36评分方面,Masquelet组与Llizarov组相比有显著性差异,Llizarov组优于Masquelet组(P<0.05);在优良率、手术次数、踝关节Lowa评分、感染控制率、患肢功能优良率方面,Masquelet组与Llizarov组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:与Llizarov技术相比,Masquelet技术治疗感染性骨缺损在骨缺损愈合时间、完全负重时间、治疗费用、并发症发生率方面具有明显的优势,而Llizarov技术在膝关节Lowa评分、SF-36评分方面则较Masquelet技术具有优势,但在治疗优良率、手术次数、踝关节lowa评分、感染控制率、患肢功能优良率方面,Masquelet技术和Llizarov技术并无明显差异,但由于纳入研究的质量不高,样本量较少,确切疗效仍然需要更高质量的RCT研究加以证实。
Objective:To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Masquelet technology and Llizarov group technology in the treatment of infectious bone defects by meta-analysis.Methods:Databases including China Knowledge Network(CNKI),Wanfang,VIP,Chinese Biomedical Literature Database(CBM),Pubmed,Medline,and Cochrane Llibrarywere searched.The retrieval time was from the time of the database establishment to January 2020.According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria,randomized controlled trials on the treatment of infectious bone defects using Masquelet technology and Llizarov technology were collected,and the retrieved literature was independently screened,evaluated with data extracted by two researchers,and then RevMan5.3 software was used so for meta-analysis.Results:A total of 10 RCT documents were included,with a total of 496 patients,including 242 in the Masquelet group and 254 in the Llizarov group.The results of the meta-analysis showed that in terms of bone defect healing time,total weight bearing time,treatment cost,and complication rate,the Masquelet group was significantly different from the Llizarov group,and the Masquelet group was better than the Llizarov group(P<0.05);In terms of knee joint Lowa score and SF-36 score,Masquelet group has significant differences compared with Llizarov group,Llizarov group is better than Masquelet group(P<0.05)in excellent rate,number of operations,ankle Lowa score,and infection control rate.In terms of excellent rate of affected limb function,there was no significant difference between Masquelet group and Llizarov group(P>0.05).Conclusion:Compared with Llizarov technology,Masquelet technology has obvious advantages in the treatment of infectious bone defects in terms of bone defect healing time,total weight-bearing time,treatment cost,and complication rate.In terms of scoring,it has advantages over Masquelet technology,but in terms of excellent treatment rate,number of operations,and ankle lowa score.In terms of infection control rate and excellent functi
作者
化昊天
赵文宇
白文博
张磊
王新卫
HUA Hao-tian;ZHAO Wen-yu;BAI Wen-bo;ZHANG Lei;WANG Xin-wei(Henan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Zhengzhou Henan 450046,China;Shaanxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Xianyang,Henan 712046,China;Henan Provincial Orthopedic Hospital,Luoyang Henan 471002,China)
出处
《海南医学院学报》
CAS
2020年第11期838-845,共8页
Journal of Hainan Medical University
基金
河南省科技攻关项目(182102310487)。
