Résumé
BACKGROUND:Intramedul ary nails and locking plates are widely used for two-part proximal humerus fracture. Which is better for two types of implants in patients remains controversial. OBJECTIVE:To determine the clinical outcome of intramedul ary nails versus locking plates for two-part proximal humerus fracture according to Cochrane Meta analysis. METHODS:We searched PubMed, SCI, Embase, the Cochranel Library and CBMdisc, VIP information, Wanfang Database, and CNKI for randomized control ed trials and quasi-randomized control ed trials on intramedul ary nails and locking plates for two-part proximal humerus fracture. RevMan 5.2 software was used to analyze operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fracture healing time, postoperative complications (heterotopic ossification, pain, screw penetration, necrosis of humeral head), and Constant Score. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:Six articles of clinical control ed trials were included with 259 patients. 131 patients received intramedul ary nails, and 128 patients received locking plates. Meta-analysis displayed that no significant difference in fracture healing time, heterotopic ossification, pain, necrosis of humeral head and Constant Score was detected between intramedul ary nails and locking plates for two-part proximal humerus fracture. Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and screw penetration were significantly less in the fixation with intramedul ary nails than that in locking plates (P<0.05). These findings suggested that compared with locking plates, intramedul ary nails method for two-part proximal humerus fractures could reduce screw penetration.