基于PRISMA原则的对比Masquelet技术与骨搬运修复下肢大段骨缺损疗效的meta分析

doi:10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2021.04.024

PDF(8082 KB)

中国临床解剖学杂志 ›› 2021, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (4) : 484-491. DOI: 10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2021.04.024

临床研究

基于PRISMA原则的对比Masquelet技术与骨搬运修复下肢大段骨缺损疗效的meta分析

文虹杰¹，　陈仲¹，　杨华刚¹，　李俊男¹，　徐永清²

作者信息 +

A meta-analysis of Masquelet technique versus bone transport in lower extremity bone defect reconstruction

Wen Hongjie¹, Chen Zhong¹, Yang Huagang¹, Li Junnan¹, Xu Yongqing²

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

通过Meta分析评价Masquelet技术与骨搬运技术修复下肢骨缺损的疗效差异。方法　检索Pubmed、Embase、CNKI、万方、CBM数据库，收集1950年1月至2019年10月国内外正式刊物发表的有关Masquelet技术与骨搬运技术治疗下肢骨缺损病例对照研究的中英文文献，严格评价纳入研究的文献质量，提取相关资料，运用RevMan 5.3软件统计分析数据。结果　共纳入7项研究，包含325名患者。资料分析显示，在Paley骨愈合优良率（RR＝0.99，95% CI：0.85，1.15，P=0.93）、肢体功能优良率（RR=1.23，95% CI：0.90，1.67，P＝0.19）、Iowa膝关节评分（SMD＝0.45，95% CI：-0.05，0.94，P=0.08）、Iowa踝关节评分（SMD＝0.10，95% CI：-0.39，0.59，P=0.69）等方面，Masquelet组与骨搬运组无显著性差异。与骨搬运组相比，Masquelet组并发症发生率较低（RR=0.55，95% CI：0.38，0.79，P=0.001），感染控制率较高（RR=1.15，95% CI：1.03，1.30，P=0.02），手术次数较少（SMD=-0.47，95% CI：-0.81，-0.14，P=0.005），治愈时间较短（SMD=-1.19，95% CI：-2.15：-0.22：P=0.02），术后SF-36评分较高（SMD=2.33，95% CI：1.81，2.85，P<0.01）。结论　与骨搬运技术相比，Masquelet技术修复下肢大段骨缺损在并发症发生率、感染控制率、手术次数、治愈时间、术后SF-36评分方面可能更有优势，而在Paley骨愈合优良率、肢体功能优良率、Iowa膝踝关节评分方面两者并无差异。有待多中心、高质量、长期随访的研究进一步评估。

Abstract

Objective　To compare the efficacy and safety between Masquelet technique and bone transport in lower extremity bone defect reconstruction.　Methods　PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, Wanfang, CBM and Weipu databases were searched. Chinese and English literatures on Masquelet technique and bone transport in the treatment of lower limb bone defect published in official journals from January 1950 to October 2019 were collected. The quality of the included literatures was strictly evaluated, and relevant data were extracted. The data were statistically analyzed by RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of seven studies involving 325 patients were included. There were no significant difference in Paley bone healing (RR=0.99, 95% CI:0.85,1.15, P=0.93), the rate of good and excellent limb function (RR=1.23, 95% CI: 0.90, 1.67, P=0.19), the Iowa knee score (SMD=0.45, 95% CI: -0.05, 0.94, P=0.08), and the Iowa ankle score (SMD=0.10, 95% CI: -0.39, 0.59, P=0.69) between the Masquelet group and bone transport group. Compared with the bone transport group, there was a lower incidence of complications (RR＝0.55, 95% CI: 0.38，0.79, P＝0.001), a higher infection control rate (RR=1.15, 95% CI:1.03,1.30,P=0.02), fewer surgeries (SMD=-0.47,95% CI:-0.81,-0.14,P=0.005), and a shorter healing time (SMD=-1.19, 95% CI:2.15,0.22,P=0.02), higher postoperative SF-36 score (SMD=2.33, 95% CI: 1.81, 2.85, P<0.01) in the Masquelet group. Conclusions Compared with bone transport technique, Masquelet technique may have more advantages in the incidence of complications, infection control rate, number of surgeries, healing time, and postoperative SF-36 score in repairing of bone defects of lower extremity. However, there is no difference in Paley bone healing score, limb function score, Iowa knee and ankle joint score. Further research is required and future studies should include assessments of outcome at long-term follow-up.

导出引用

文虹杰, 陈仲, 杨华刚, 李俊男, 徐永清. 基于PRISMA原则的对比Masquelet技术与骨搬运修复下肢大段骨缺损疗效的meta分析[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志. 2021, 39(4): 484-491 https://doi.org/10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2021.04.024

Wen Hongjie, Chen Zhong, Yang Huagang, Li Junnan, Xu Yongqing. A meta-analysis of Masquelet technique versus bone transport in lower extremity bone defect reconstruction[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy. 2021, 39(4): 484-491 https://doi.org/10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2021.04.024

中图分类号： R687.3

参考文献

[1] Pederson WC, Grome L. Microsurgical reconstruction of the lower extremityy[J]. Semin Plast Surg, 2019, 33(1): 54-58. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1677878.
[2] Liu CF, Zhang XH, Zhang XS, et al. Bone transport with a unilateral external fixator for femoral infected nonunion after intramedullary nailing fixation: a case control study[J]. Medicine, 2019, 98(20): e15612. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015612.
[3] Masquelet A, Kanakaris NK, Obert L, et al. Bone repair using the masquelet technique[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2019, 101(11): 1024-1036. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00842.
[4] Mathieu L, Bilichtin E, Durand M, et al. Masquelet technique for open tibia fractures in a military setting[J]. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2020, 46(5): 1099-1105. DOI: 10.1007/s00068-019-01217-y.
[5] Morwood MP, Streufert BD, Bauer A, et al. Intramedullary nails yield superior results compared with plate fixation when using the masquelet technique in the femur and tibia[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2019, 33(11): 547-552. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001579.
[6] Sen C, Demirel M, Sağlam Y, et al. Acute shortening versus bone transport for the treatment of infected femur non-unions with bone defects[J]. Injury, 2019, 50(11): 2075-2083.DOI:10.1016/j.injury. 2019. 08.021.
[7] Shankhdhar VK, Yadav PS, Puri A, et al. Free fibula flap for lower limb salvage after tumour resection[J]. Indian J Plast Surg, 2018, 51(3): 274-282. DOI: 10.4103/ijps.IJPS_113_17.
[8] Yikemu X, Tuxun A, Nuermaimaiti M, et al. Effects of vacuum sealing drainage combined with ilizarov bone transport technique in the treatment of tibial traumatic osteomyelitis[J]. Med Sci Monit, 2019, 25: 6864-6871. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.915450.
[9] Aktuglu K, Erol K, Vahabi A. Ilizarov bone transport and treatment of critical-sized tibial bone defects: a narrative review[J]. J Orthop Traumatol, 2019, 20(1): 22. DOI: 10.1186/s10195-019-0527-1.
[10]Barinaga G, Beason AM, Gardner MP. Novel surgical approach to segmental bone transport using a magnetic intramedullary limb lengthening system[J]. J Am Acad Orthop Sur, 2018, 26(22): e477-e482. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00487.
[11]Bernstein M, Fragomen A, Rozbruch SR. Tibial bone transport over an intramedullary nail using cable and pulleys[J]. JBJS Essent Surg Tech, 2018, 8(1): e9. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.17.00035.
[12]Yang ZM, Tao HM, Ye ZM, et al. Bone transport for reconstruction of large bone defects after tibial tumor resection: a report of five cases[J]. J Int Med Res, 2018, 46(8): 3219-3225. DOI: 10.1177/0300060518774992.
[13]Careri S, Vitiello R, Oliva MS, et al. Masquelet technique and osteomyelitis: innovations and literature review[J]. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 2019, 23(2 Suppl): 210-212. DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_201904_17495.
[14]Ma CH, Chiu YC, Tsai KL, et al. Masquelet technique with external locking plate for recalcitrant distal tibial nonunion[J]. Injury, 2017, 48(12): 2847-2852. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.10.037.
[15]Mühlhäusser J, Winkler J, Babst R, et al. Infected tibia defect fractures treated with the masquelet technique[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2017, 96(20): e6948. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006948.
[16]Saxer F, Eckardt H. Reconstruction of osseous defects using the Masquelet technique[J]. Orthopade, 2017, 46(8): 665-672. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-017-3443-1.
[17]Stella M, Santolini E, Autuori A, et al. Masquelet technique to treat a septic nonunion after nailing of a femoral open fracture[J]. Injury, 2018, 49(Suppl 4): S29-S33. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.11.017.
[18]Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation[J]. BMJ, 2015, 350: g7647. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7647.
[19]Sadek AF, Laklok MA, Fouly EH, et al. Two stage reconstruction versus bone transport in management of resistant infected tibial diaphyseal nonunion with a gap[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2016, 136(9): 1233-1241. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-016-2523-8.
[20]Tong K, Zhong Z, Peng Y, et al. Masquelet technique versus Ilizarov bone transport for reconstruction of lower extremity bone defects following posttraumatic osteomyelitis[J]. Injury, 2017, 48(7): 1616-1622. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.03.042.
[21]黄纯波, 夏先强, 刘永峰. Masquelet和Ilizarov技术治疗感染性骨不连的临床效果比较[J]. 检验医学与临床, 2019, 16(4): 523-525. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2019.04.026.
[22]李树源, 周琦石, 陈超, 等. 诱导膜技术与骨搬运技术治疗胫骨创伤性骨髓炎的疗效比较[J]. 中国中医骨伤科杂志, 2019, 27(1): 17-21. CNKI:SUN:ZGZG.0.2019-01-005.
[23]孙志波, 郭骏, 陈荣, 等. Masquelet技术与Ilizarov技术治疗成人胫骨慢性骨髓炎的早期临床疗效比较[J]. 骨科, 2017, 8(5): 349-353, 359. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8573.2017.05.003.
[24]韦光福. 骨搬运与Masquelet技术治疗胫骨感染性骨缺损疗效比较[J]. 世界最新医学信息文摘, 2017, 17(96): 34-35. DOI: 10.19613/j.cnki.1671-3141.2017.96.019.
[25]吴俊学, 李毓灵, 陈果. Ilizarov技术与Masquelet技术治疗股骨感染性骨不连的疗效[J]. 西部医学, 2019, 31(8): 1237-1241. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-3511.2019.08.020.
[26]杨礼丹, 邹刚, 何文斌, 等. Masquelet技术与Ilizarov技术治疗成人下肢长骨感染性骨缺损临床疗效分析[J]. 河北医学, 2018, 24(6): 918-922. DOI: 10.3969 /j.issn.1006-6233.2018.06.010.
[27]Oh Y, Yoshii T, Okawa A. Ankle arthrodesis using a modified masquelet induced membrane technique for open ankle fracture with a substantial osteochondral defect: A case report of novel surgical technique[J]. Injury, 2019, 50(11):2128-2135.DOI:10.1016/j.injury. 2019. 09.020.
[28]Ley P, Gosselin RA, Villar R. The Masquelet induced-membrane technique: an option for a tertiary-referral conflict setting[J]. J Surg Case Rep, 2019, 2019(6): rjz149. DOI: 10.1093/jscr/rjz149.