A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

[Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of PFNA and InterTAN for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures]. | LitMetric

Objective: To system evaluate the clinical effect and safety of PFNA and InterTAN internal fixation methods for femoral intertrochanteric fracture.

Methods: According to the Cochrane systemic analysis method, randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials which were about the comparison of PFNA and InterTAN for intertrochanteric fracture were collected from Cochrane Library(2017, issue 4), PubMed (January, 2003-May, 2017), Wanfang Med Online (January, 2003-May, 2017) and China Academic Journals Full-text Database(January, 2003-May, 2017) by computer searching. Cross-checking was done after assessing the quality of the included trials and extracting the data by two reviewers independently. Data analysis were performed with RevMan 5.3.

Results: Two randomized controlled trials and five quasi-randomized controlled trials involving 611 cases met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analyses showed no significant differences between the two methods on Harris scores[MD=-1.00, 95%CI(-2.29, 0.28), =0.13], union time[MD=0.04, 95%CI (-0.70, 0.77), =0.92], full weight-bearing time[MD=1.06, 95%CI(-0.29, 2.42), =0.13], hospital stay[MD=-0.04, 95%CI (-0.52, 0.45), =0.89] and length of incision[MD=-1.00, 95%CI (-2.64, 0.65), =0.23]. There were significant differences between the two methods on operative time[MD=-25.75, 95%CI (-37.47, -14.03), <0.000 1], intraoperative blood loss[MD=-55.67, 95%CI(-108.07, -3.27), =0.04] and the internal fixation complication rate[MD=4.17, 95%CI (1.33, 13.08), =0.01].

Conclusions: Both PFNA and InterTAN could provide good effect for intertrochanteric fracture. The operation time of PFNA is shorter than that of InterTAN, and there is less blood loss during operation. PFNA may be the first choice for the treatment of patients who have many complications and can't endure long-time operation. The complications of PFNA are more than those of InterTAN. In patients with long life expectancy and high requirements, InterTAN may be preferentially selected to reduce complications. According to the patient's situation, after a comprehensive consideration, appropriate treatment can be selected.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-0034.2017.10.011DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

controlled trials
16
pfna intertan
12
2003-may 2017
12
safety pfna
8
randomized controlled
8
trials quasi-randomized
8
quasi-randomized controlled
8
january 2003-may
8
differences methods
8
trials
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!