ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:There are various internal fixators in treatment of distal femoral fracture. The commonly used fixators are locking compression plate, anterograde intramedul ary nails and retrograde intramedul ary nails. However, the efficacy of three common fixation is controversial. OBJECTIVE:To compare the effect of locking compression plate, anterograde intramedul ary nails and retrograde intramedul ary nails for treatment of distal femoral fracture, and to select the appropriate internal fixation method. METHODS:From May 2007 to November 2007, 118 patients with distal femoral fractures were treated with internal fixation in the hospital and their clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. Among them, 38 cases received locking compression plate, 21 cases received anterograde intramedul ary nails, and 59 cases received retrograde intramedul ary nails. The intraoperative blood loss, operative time, fracture healing time and rate of good postoperative recovery of knee joint in three groups were compared. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:Al the involved 118 patients were fol owed up for 14-26 months, average 20 months. No patients developed infection. Except one case delayed bone defect healing due to the fractures and was completely healed after bone fil ing at 19 weeks, the other cases healed within 4.5 months. There was no significant difference in fracture healing time among three groups (P>0.05). Intraoperative blood loss and operation time in anterograde intramedul ary nail group and retrograde intramedul ary nail group were superior to locking compression plate group. In addition, anterograde intramedul ary nail group was superior to retrograde intramedul ary nail group, with significant difference (P<0.05). Kolment grading fine rate in locking compression plate, anterograde intramedul ary nail and retrograde intramedul ary nail groups was 76.3%, 52.4%and 76.3%respectively. Retrograde intramedul ary nail fixation is firm, stable and reliable, with less intraoperative blood loss, shorter operation time, smal trauma, and easy fracture reset, especial y in the recovery of knee joint function. Compared with locking compression plate and anterograde intramedul ary nail, retrograde intramedul ary nailing treatment of distal femoral fractures has more advantages.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:At present, it is controversial to choose methotrexate therapy alone or triple therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. OBJECTIVE:To systemical y evaluate the efficacy and safety of methotrexate therapy and methopterin+hydroxychloroquine+sulfasalazine triple therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS:Computer retrieval was performed on the Cochrane library, PubMed, EMBASE NRR (http://www.updatesoftware.com/National), CCT (http://www.control ed-trails.com) and the Chinese biomedical literature database. Manual retrieval was performed on Chinese major orthopedic journals. Randomized control ed trials of methotrexate therapy alone and methopterin+hydroxychloroquine+sulfasalazine triple therapy treatment for rheumatoid arthritis were col ected. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated. The statistical software Revman 5.0 provided by the Cochrane col aboration was used. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: A total of four literatures in a randomized control ed trial, a total of 297 cases were included;the methodological quality was al class B. Meta-analysis results showed that blood sedimentation improvements were larger in methotrexate therapy alone than in the triple therapy [mean difference=7.01, 95%confidence interval (CI) (2.82, 11.19), P=0.001). Improvements of joints were better in triple therapy than that in single therapy [OR=0.62, 95%CI (0.41, 0.95), P=0.03). There was no significant difference in adverse events. Meta analysis could not be done in ACR, because literature did not provide detailed data. Compared with the triple therapy treatment, methotrexate therapy alone obviously reduced the sedimentation of rheumatoid arthritis in adults, but in terms of joint function improvement, triple therapy was superior to methotrexate therapy alone. Moreover, on the adverse event, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Because this system evaluation included a less number of cases, it stil needs strict large-sample randomized control ed studies to increase the strength of the evidence.