Computer-assisted cannulated screw internal fixation versus conventional cannulated screw internal fixation for femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

9Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effects between computer-assisted and traditional cannulated screw internal fixation on treating femoral neck fracture. Methods: The search was conducted in Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Database from the beginning to August 2020. RevMan5.4 software, which was provided by the International Cochrane Group, was used for the meta-analysis comparing the differences in operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, fluoroscopy frequency, fracture healing time, total drilling times, Harris score, fracture healing rate, and femoral head necrosis rate between computer-assisted and traditional methods groups. Results: A total of 1028 patients were included in 16 studies. Primary outcome indicators: Compared with the traditional method group, the computer-assisted group had less operative time (2RCTs, P < 0.00001; 8 non-RCTs, P = 0.009; Overall, P < 0.00001), intraoperative bleeding (1 RCTs, P < 0.00001; 9non-RCTs, P < 0.00001; Overall, P < 0.00001), femoral head necrosis rate (1 RCT, P = 0.11;7 non-RCTs, P = 0.09; Overall, P = 0.02) and higher Harris scores (1 RCT, P < 0.0001; 9 non-RCTs, P = 0.0002; Overall, P < 0.0001), and there were no significant differences in fracture healing rate between the two groups (5 non-RCTs, P = 0.17). Secondary outcomes indicators: The computer-assisted group had a lower frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy and total number of drills compared with the traditional method group, while there was no significant difference in fracture healing time. Conclusion: Compared with the traditional hollow screw internal fixation on the treatment of femoral neck fracture, computer-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation can shorten the operation time and improve the operation efficiency and reduce the X-ray injury of medical staff and help patients obtain a better prognosis. Therefore, computer-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation is a better choice for the treatment of femoral neck fracture. Study registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42020214493.

References Powered by Scopus

The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

25731Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses

13218Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration

5143Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The efficacy of dynamic compression locking system vs. dynamic hip screw in the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a comparative study

5Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Application of robot navigation system for insertion of femoral neck system in the treatment of femoral neck fracture

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A prediction model for osteonecrosis of femoral head after internal fixation with multiple cannulated compression screws for adult femoral neck fractures

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cheng, Q. hao, Li, P. biao, Lu, T. ting, Guo, S. fang, Di, W. fei, Yang, K. hu, & Qian, Y. wen. (2021, December 1). Computer-assisted cannulated screw internal fixation versus conventional cannulated screw internal fixation for femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. BioMed Central Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02806-7

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 4

57%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

29%

Researcher 1

14%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 3

43%

Psychology 2

29%

Computer Science 1

14%

Engineering 1

14%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free