Arşiv logosu
  • Türkçe
  • English
  • Giriş
    Yeni kullanıcı mısınız? Kayıt için tıklayın. Şifrenizi mi unuttunuz?
Arşiv logosu
  • Koleksiyonlar
  • Sistem İçeriği
  • Analiz
  • Talep/Soru
  • Türkçe
  • English
  • Giriş
    Yeni kullanıcı mısınız? Kayıt için tıklayın. Şifrenizi mi unuttunuz?
  1. Ana Sayfa
  2. Yazara Göre Listele

Yazar "Xu, Hong" seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Sayfa Başına Sonuç
Sıralama seçenekleri
  • Yükleniyor...
    Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    Comparative effectiveness research on proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw in patients with trochanteric fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
    (BMC, 2022) Xu, Hong; Liu, Yang; Sezgin, Erdem Aras; Tarasevicius, Sarunas; Christensen, Robin; Raina, Deepak Bushan; Tagil, Magnus; Lidgren, Lars
    Background The treatments for trochanteric fractures try to regain early mobility and limit morbidity and risk of reoperations. The most currently used dynamic hip screw (DHS) and the proximal femoral nail (PFN) are both with pros and cons. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of these interventions for trochanteric fractures by evaluating the surgical performance and postoperative outcomes. Methods PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register were searched for RCTs comparing DHS and PFN for trochanteric fractures. All selected studies and the risk of bias were assessed. Clinical data including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, successful closed reduction and complications like nonunion, implant failure and reoperation were recorded. Random-effects models were used in Review Manager software, and GRADE was applied for the interpretation of the evidence. Results From 286 identified trials, twelve RCTs including 1889 patients were eligible for inclusion; six RCTs directly comparing DHS with PFN, while other six compared DHS with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). Compared to DHS, PFN had shorter operative time and led to less intraoperative blood loss. However, DHS need less intraoperative fluoroscopy time than PFN. No difference was seen for the achievement of closed reduction. For risk of postoperative complications, no difference was seen between PFN and DHS for non-union, risk of implant failure and revision surgery. Conclusions PFN(A) resulted in a shorter operative time and less intraoperative blood loss compared to DHS. However, no difference was seen for postoperative complications.

| Aksaray Üniversitesi | Kütüphane | Açık Bilim Politikası | Açık Erişim Politikası | Rehber | OAI-PMH |

Bu site Creative Commons Alıntı-Gayri Ticari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile korunmaktadır.


Aksaray Üniversitesi Kütüphane ve Dokümantasyon Daire Başkanlığı, Aksaray, TÜRKİYE
İçerikte herhangi bir hata görürseniz lütfen bize bildirin

Powered by İdeal DSpace

DSpace yazılımı telif hakkı © 2002-2025 LYRASIS

  • Çerez Ayarları
  • Gizlilik Politikası
  • Son Kullanıcı Sözleşmesi
  • Geri Bildirim