经跗骨窦间隙与传统L型入路治疗跟骨骨折的系统评价  

Sinus Tarsi Approach Versus Traditional Lateral L-type Approach in the Treatment of Calcaneal Fracture:A Meta-Analysis

作　　者：袁宏谋[1] 孙振国 朱佳俊[1] 张治宇[1] YUAN Hongmou;SUN Zhenguo;ZHU Jiajun;ZHANG Zhiyu(Department of Orthopedics,The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University,Shenyang Liaoning 110032,China;Department of Orthopedics,The First People’s Hospital of Huzhou City,Huzhou Zhejiang 313000,China)

机构地区：[1]中国医科大学附属第四医院骨科,辽宁沈阳110032 [2]浙江省湖州市第一人民医院骨科,浙江湖州313000

出　　处：《中国继续医学教育》2019年第9期104-107,共4页China Continuing Medical Education

基　　金：辽宁省科学技术计划项目(20170541058)

摘　　要：目的评估经跗骨窦间隙入路治疗跟骨骨折的临床疗效。方法检索2017年11月前CNKI、CBM、Pubmed、Web of science及Cochrane临床试验数据库等数据库中,有关经跗骨窦间隙入路与传统后外侧L型入路治疗跟骨骨折比较的随机对照试验(RCTs),采用RevMan5.3进行Meta分析。结果共纳入8篇文献,609例患者。Meta分析显示,经跗骨窦间隙入路组手术时间、术中失血量及并发症发生情况优于传统后外侧L型入路组;而两组间术后B?hler角及Gissane角、骨折愈合时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P> 0.05)。结论采用经跗骨窦间隙入路治疗跟骨骨折创伤更小,安全性及有效性可靠。Objective To assess the clinical efficacy of sinus tarsi approach in calcaneal fracture. Methods Databases including CNKI, CBM, Pubmed, Web of science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sinus tarsi approach versus traditional lateral L-type approach in treatment of calcaneal fracture published before November 2017. A Meta-analysis was performed utilizing the RevMan5.3 software. Results Totally 8 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, and there were 609 patients in those studies. Meta-analysis results showed that there were significant differences in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss and complication incidence between experimental group and control group. But there were no significant differences in the postoperative B?hler angle, Gissane angle and fracture healing time (P>0.05). Conclusion Treatment of calcaneal fracture through Sinus tarsi approach have less trauma, reliable safety and effectiveness.

关 键 词：跗骨窦间隙 后外侧L 切口 跟骨骨折 系统评价 META分析 

分 类 号：R687[医药卫生—骨科学]