ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Humans , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/methods , Hip Prosthesis , Follow-Up Studies , Prosthesis Design , Polyethylene , Prosthesis Failure , Reoperation , Ceramics , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE@#To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of arthroscopy and traditional incision in the treatment of tibial avulsion fracture of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL).@*METHODS@#From July 2010 to July 2020, clinical comparative trial about arthroscopy and traditional incision in the treatment of ACL tibial avulsion fracture was conducted by using computer-based databases, including Embase, Pubmed, Central, Cinahl, PQDT, CNKI, Weipu, Wanfang, Cochrane Library, CBM. Literature screening and data extraction were carried out according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the quality of the included literature was evaluated by improved Jadad score and Ottawa Newcastle scale (NOS). The operation time, hospital stay, fracture healing time, knee range of motion, postoperative excellent and good rate, complication rate, Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and Tegner score were statistically analyzed by Review Manager 5.3 software.@*RESULTS@#Finally, 16 literatures were included, including 1 randomized controlled trial and 15 non randomized controlled trials, with a total of 822 patients (405 in arthroscopy group and 417 in traditional incision group). Meta analysis showed that the operation time [MD=-9.03, 95% CI(-14.36, -3.70), P<0.001], hospital stay [MD=-5.81, 95%CI(-9.32, -2.31), P=0.001] and fracture healing time [MD=-14.61, 95% CI(-17.93, -11.28), P<0.001] in the arthroscopy group were better than those in the traditional incision group. The incidence of complications in arthroscopy group was lower than that in traditional incision group[OR=0.15, 95%CI(0.07, 0.33), P<0.001]. The postoperative excellent and good rate[OR=4.39, 95%CI (1.96, 9.82), P<0.001], knee mobility[MD=6.78, 95%CI(2.79, 10.77), P<0.001], Lysholm score[MD=11.63, 95%CI(4.91, 18.36), P<0.001], IKDC score[MD=7.83, 95%CI(6.09, 9.57), P<0.001] and Tegner score[MD=0.60, 95%CI(0.31, 0.89), P<0.001] in the arthroscopic group were higher than those in the traditional incision group.@*CONCLUSION@#Compared with the traditional open reduction and internal fixation, arthroscopic surgery in patients with ACL tibial avulsion fracture can shorten the operation time, hospital stay and fracture healing time, reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, and obtain good postoperative knee function. It can be recommended as one of the first choice for patients with ACL tibial avulsion fracture.