切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (06) : 365 -371. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2025.06.007

Meta分析

无头加压螺钉与微型钢板内固定治疗掌指骨骨折效果对比的荟萃分析
高艳龙, 何建平, 刘爱华(), 王月鹏()   
  1. 101200 北京市平谷区医院骨科
  • 收稿日期:2024-05-12 出版日期:2025-12-05
  • 通信作者: 刘爱华, 王月鹏
  • 基金资助:
    北京市平谷区医院院内科研种子课题项目(2025-kyzz-2)

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of headless compression screw and mini-plate internal fixation in the treatment of metacarpal and phalangeal fractures

Yanlong Gao, Jianping He, Aihua Liu(), Yuepeng Wang()   

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Beijing PingguDistrict Hospital, Beijing 101200, China
  • Received:2024-05-12 Published:2025-12-05
  • Corresponding author: Aihua Liu, Yuepeng Wang
引用本文:

高艳龙, 何建平, 刘爱华, 王月鹏. 无头加压螺钉与微型钢板内固定治疗掌指骨骨折效果对比的荟萃分析[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2025, 11(06): 365-371.

Yanlong Gao, Jianping He, Aihua Liu, Yuepeng Wang. Meta-analysis of the efficacy of headless compression screw and mini-plate internal fixation in the treatment of metacarpal and phalangeal fractures[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2025, 11(06): 365-371.

目的

评价无头加压螺钉技术和微型钢板技术治疗掌指骨骨折的效果。

方法

检索英文数据库Pubmed、Web of Science和中文数据库中国知网、维普、万方数据库2013年1月至2023年12月发表的有关掌指骨骨折术后无头加压螺钉和微型钢板内固定效果对比的临床试验文献,同时手工检索杂志目录以及参考文献。采用Review Manager 5.4软件对手术时间,骨折愈合时间,手功能术后恢复优良情况,术后感染以及术后肌腱粘连情况进行Meta分析。

结果

本研究共纳入9篇文献进行研究,包括英文文献2篇,中文文献7篇。无头加压螺钉技术在手术时间(SMD=-1.37,95% CI:-1.68,-1.06,P<0.01)以及骨折愈合时间(SMD=-1.33,95% CI:-2.12,-0.54,P<0.01)上均短于微型钢板技术,并且术后手功能恢复优良情况也优于微型钢板技术(OR=5.39,95% CI:2.17,13.39,P<0.01)。在术后并发症方面,两者术后感染发生情况相近(OR=1.28,95% CI:0.48,3.42,P=0.62),但术后肌腱粘连(OR=0.07,95% CI:0.03,0.20,P<0.01)方面无头加压螺钉技术明显少于微型钢板技术。

结论

在治疗掌指骨骨折中,无头加压螺钉技术在手术时间、骨折愈合时间,术后手功能恢复及并发症方面均优于微创钢板技术,对于适应症合适的掌指骨骨折患者无头加压螺钉技术可以取代微创钢板技术,作为首选治疗方式。

Objective

To evaluate the effect of headless compression screw technique and mini-plate technique in the treatment of metacarpal and phalangeal fractures.

Methods

The English databases PubMed, Web of Science and Chinese databases CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched for the clinical trial literatures about the comparison of the fixation effects of headless compression screws and mini-plates after metacarpal and phalangeal fractures from January 2013 to December 2023. At the same time, the magazine catalogue and references were searched manually. The operation time, fracture healing time, excellent postoperative recovery of hand function, postoperative infection andpostoperative tendon adhesion were analyzed by Review Manager 5.4 software.

Results

A total of 9 articles were included in this study, including 2 in English and 7 in Chinese. The operation time (SMD=-1.37, 95% CI: -1.68, -1.06, P<0.01) and fracture healing time (SMD=-1.33, 95% CI: -2.12, -0.54, P<0.01) of the headless compression screw technique were shorter than those of the mini-plate technique, and the postoperative hand function recovery of the headless compression screw technique was better than that of the mini-plate technique (OR=5.39, 95% CI: 2.17, 13.39, P<0.01). In terms of postoperative complications, the incidence of postoperative infection was similar between the two groups (OR=1.28, 95% CI: 0.48, 3.42, P=0.62), but the incidence of postoperative tendon adhesion (OR=0.07, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.20, P<0.01) was significantly less than those of mini-plate technique.

Conclusion

In the treatment of metacarpal and phalangeal fractures, headless compression screw technique is superior to mini-plate technique in operation time, fracture healing time, postoperative hand function recovery and complications for patients with metacarpal and phalangeal fractures with suitable indications, headless compression screw technology can replace minimally invasive plate technology as the first choice.

图1 文献筛选流程图
图2 随机对照研究的偏倚风险评估
表1 纳入文献的基本特征
作者 年份 研究类型 固定方式 骨折类型 总人数(骨折数) 性别 年龄 随访时间(月) 质量评价
横行骨折 斜形骨折 螺旋形骨折
Barrera-Ochoa等[8] 2023 回顾性研究 无头加压螺钉 12 10 - 22(22) 19 3 28(19~57) 12 7
微型钢板 15 14 - 29(29) 25 4 31(18~55) 12
Silins等[9] 2022 回顾性研究 无头加压螺钉   -   16(17) 12 4 45(16~82) 8.7±2.6 7
微型钢板   -   13(14) 9 4 52(30~71) 9.2±2.6
谭立国[10] 2023 随机对照研究 无头加压螺钉 - 26 20 46(46) 24 22 46.46±9.71 6 图2
微型钢板 - 19 26 45(45) 21 24 45.32±9.74 6
夏晓枫等[13] 2022 随机对照研究 无头加压螺钉   -   25(25) 13 12 40.01±5.48 24 图2
微型钢板   -   25(25) 14 11 39.51±5.47 24
尹建石等[14] 2020 回顾性研究 无头加压螺钉 - 26 5 31(31) 31 0 28.0±13.3 3~32 6
微型钢板 - 51 4 55(55) 55 0 25.5±8.5 3~32
谷滔[15] 2018 随机对照研究 无头加压螺钉 - 11 8 19(55) 12 7 44.67±11.23 - 图2
微型钢板 - 10 9 19(55) 12 7 43.12±10.45 -
陈坤见[16] 2018 随机对照研究 无头加压螺钉   -   20(20) 15 5 36.84±4.19 - 图2
微型钢板   -   20(20) 13 7 34.61±6.58 -
罗旭坤等[17] 2017 随机对照研究 无头加压螺钉 - 40 27 67(78) 42 25 27.30±44.31 2~18 图2
微型钢板 - 42 25 67(81) 38 29 26.87±43.34 2~18
岳勇等[18] 2015 前瞻性研究 无头加压螺钉 - 25 19 44(44) 25 19 29.91±3.63 8.2±0.64 5
微型钢板 - 24 20 44(44) 28 16 31.27±3.88 8.2±0.64
图3 无头加压螺钉和微型钢板治疗掌指骨骨折手术时间对比的Meta分析结果
图4 无头加压螺钉和微型钢板治疗掌指骨骨折术后骨折愈合时间对比的Meta分析结果
图5 无头加压螺钉和微型钢板治疗掌指骨骨折术后术后手功能恢复优良情况对比的Meta分析结果
图6 无头加压螺钉和微型钢板治疗掌指骨骨折术后感染对比的Meta分析结果
图7 无头加压螺钉和微型钢板治疗掌指骨骨折术后肌腱粘连对比的Meta分析结果
图8 无头加压螺钉和微型钢板治疗掌指骨骨折效果对比的Meta分析发表偏倚漏斗图注:A:手术时间;B:骨折愈合时间;C:术后手功能恢复优良情况;D:术后感染;E:术后肌腱粘连
图9 无头加压螺钉内固定技术示意图
1
温俊臣,胡益斌,王欣.微型钢板与克氏针内固定治疗掌指骨骨折的疗效分析[J].系统医学, 2023, 8(13): 119-123.
2
Christodoulou Neophytos, Asimakopoulos Dimitrios, Kapetanos Konstantinos, et al. Principles of management of hand fractures [J]. J Perioper Pract, 2023, 33(11): 342-349.
3
王鹏.微型钢板置入内固定治疗掌指骨骨折的手部功能恢复观察[J].中国医药科学, 2018, 8(2): 222-224.
4
Moncef Erraji, Abdelhafid Derfoufi, Abdessamad Kharraji, et al. [Osteosynthesis of fractures of the metacarpals and phalanges of the hand with mini plate: about 12 cases] [J]. Pan Afr Med J [J]. 2016, 24: 224.
5
Giron A, Cox CT, Choi E, et al. Outcomes of threaded intramedullary headless nail fixation for metacarpal fractures [J]. Cureus, 2023, 15(11): e48618.
6
Boulton CL, Salzler M, Mudgal CS. Intramedullary cannulated headless screw fixation of a comminuted subcapital metacarpal fracture: case report [J]. J Hand Surg Am, 2010, 35(8): 1260-1263.
7
顾文奇,梅国华,柴益民.无头加压空心螺钉治疗舟状骨骨折的早期疗效[J].中国修复重建外科杂志, 2011, 25(6): 767-768.
8
Barrera-Ochoa S, Ibañez M, Francisco S, et al. Locking plate versus retrograde intramedullary headless compression screw for unstable extra-articular metacarpal base fractures of the thumb [J]. Injury, 2023, 54 Suppl 7: 110891.
9
Silins K, Turkmen T, Vögelin E, et al. Comparing treatment of proximal phalangeal fractures with intramedullary screws versus plating [J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2023, 143(3): 1699-1706.
10
谭立国.无头加压螺钉和微型钢板内固定治疗指掌骨骨折的效果对比[J].实用手外科杂志, 2023, 37(2): 169-171, 175.
11
Norris JM, Simpson BS, Ball R, et al. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale for assessment of study quality in genetic urological research [J]. Eur Urol, 2021, 79(3): 325-326.
12
Cumpston M, Li TJ, Page MJ, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019, 10: ED000142.
13
夏晓枫,覃松,何精选.无头加压螺钉治疗成人指掌骨骨折的临床效果及2年随访[J].数理医药学杂志, 2022, 35(5): 637-640.
14
尹建石,王继,王俊生,等.无头加压螺钉与AO微型钢板内固定治疗指掌骨骨折的疗效比较[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2020, 35(11): 1224-1225.
15
谷滔.对比探究无头加压螺钉与微型钢板在掌、指骨骨折患者治疗中的临床效果[J].心理月刊, 2018 (3): 194.
16
陈坤见.无头加压螺钉和微型钢板治疗掌、指骨斜形或螺旋形骨折的临床疗效对比[J].心理医生, 2018, 24(35): 126.
17
罗旭坤,麦锦祥,淑萍.无头加压螺钉和微型钢板治疗掌、指骨斜形或螺旋形骨折的临床疗效对比[J].中国伤残医学, 2017, 25(3): 41-42.
18
岳勇,赵东风,孙皓,等.无头加压螺钉与微型钢板治疗掌、指骨骨折的疗效对比[J].临床军医杂志, 2015 (5): 479-482.
19
Raducha JE, Hammert WC. Metacarpal and phalangeal Malunions-Is it all about the rotation? [J]. Hand Clin, 2024, 40(1): 141-149.
20
Czerniecki S, Mishu M, Schmucker R. Metacarpal and phalangeal nonunions [J]. Hand Clin, 2024, 40(1): 129-139.
21
Ahmed Zulfiqar, Haider Muhammad Imran, Buzdar M Iqbal, et al. Comparison of miniplate and k-wire in the treatment of metacarpal and phalangeal fractures [J]. Cureus, 2020, 12(2): e7039.
22
Zhang B, Hu P, Yu KL, et al. Comparison of AO Titanium locking plate and screw fixation versus anterograde intramedullary fixation for isolated unstable metacarpal and phalangeal fractures [J]. Orthop Surg, 2016, 8(3): 316-322.
23
Nucci AM, Del Chiaro A, Addevico F, et al. Percutaneous headless screws and wide-awake anesthesia to fix metacarpal and phalangeal fractures: outcomes of the first 56 cases [J]. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents, 2018, 32(6): 1569-1572.
24
Köse A, Topal M, Engin , et al. Comparison of low-profile plate-screw and Kirschner-wire osteosynthesis outcomes in extra-articular unstable proximal phalangeal fractures [J]. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 2019, 29(3): 597-604.
25
El-Saeed M, Sallam A, Radwan M, et al. Kirschner wires versus Titanium plates and screws in management of unstable phalangeal fractures: a randomized, controlled clinical trial [J]. J Hand Surg Am, 2019, 44(12): 1091.e1-1091.e9.
26
Poggetti A, Nucci AM, Giesen T, et al. Percutaneous intramedullary headless screw fixation and Wide-Awake anesthesia to treat metacarpal fractures: early results in 25 patients [J]. J Hand Microsurg, 2018, 10(1): 16-21.
27
Itadera E, Yamazaki T. Trans-metacarpal Screw Fixation for Extra-articular Proximal Phalangeal Base Fractures [J]. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol, 2017, 22(1): 35-38.
28
Jones Christopher M, Padegimas Eric M, Weikert Nicole, et al. Headless screw fixation of metacarpal neck fractures:a mechanical comparative analysis [J]. Hand (N Y), 2019, 14(2): 187-192.
29
ten Berg PWL, Mudgal CS, Leibman MI, et al. Quantitative 3-dimensional CT analyses of intramedullary headless screw fixation for metacarpal neck fractures [J]. J Hand Surg Am, 2013, 38(2): 322-330.e2.
30
Del Piñal F, Ananos D, Rúas JS, et al. Minimally invasive procedure for correcting Extra-Articular malunions of metacarpals and phalanges [J]. J Hand Surg Am, 2023, 48(5): 511.e1-511.e10.
31
Borbas P, Dreu M, Poggetti A, et al. Treatment of proximal phalangeal fractures with an antegrade intramedullary screw: a cadaver study [J]. J Hand Surg Eur Vol, 2016, 41(7): 683-687.
32
Straszewski AJ, Dickherber JL, Conti Mica MA. Articular involvement with retrograde headless compression screw fixation of the metacarpal [J]. J Hand Surg Am, 2024, 49(1): 62.e1-62.e6.
[1] 董书恒, 孙庆, 屈一鸣. 椎体成形术联合抗骨质疏松药物治疗骨质疏松性椎体骨折[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(05): 586-596.
[2] 虞兵兵, 王婷婷, 方俊霖, 罗莹莹, 阳鹏, 郭云, 袁丁, 沈忠园, 黄英如. 氨甲环酸改善股骨粗隆间骨折内固定围术期失血的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(04): 427-444.
[3] 谭飞, 王静, 曾健康, 李嘉欢, 李培杰, 汪昕, 乔永杰, 叶铄, 周胜虎. 顺行髓内钉与不同逆行技术治疗第5掌骨颈骨折[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 742-750.
[4] 李继承, 刘仕祺, 杜娟, 杨子馨, 朱杏, 黑明燕. 肠造瘘术后新生儿肠液回输安全性的系统评价和Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2025, 21(02): 219-229.
[5] 李萌, 李雄雄, 徐婷, 尚进. 局部应用皮质类固醇治疗特发性肉芽肿性乳腺炎疗效与安全性的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2025, 19(02): 135-141.
[6] 丁文珠, 汪谦. 直肠癌经肛全直肠系膜切除术的肿瘤学结局:一项系统评价和Meta 分析[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 66-72.
[7] 林凯, 罗凡, 杨春. 腹腔镜与开放式补片修补术治疗复发性腹股沟疝的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(03): 317-324.
[8] 赵江桥, 杨硕. 腹腔镜与传统开放组织结构分离技术治疗成人腹壁疝疗效的Meta 分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(02): 232-240.
[9] 吴哲境, 李敬东. ICG荧光成像引导下腹腔镜肝切除术治疗肝癌的安全性和有效性Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 852-859.
[10] 张宇涵, 吴添庆, 高汶卿, 郑梽楷, 贺珉睿, 周仲国. 不可切除性肝内胆管癌不同治疗方式疗效和安全性的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(06): 939-947.
[11] 王芳, 刘达, 左智炜, 盛金平, 陈庭进, 蒋锐. 定量CT与双能X线骨密度仪对骨质疏松诊断效能比较的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(06): 363-371.
[12] 再米拉·依力哈木, 蒋升, 艾比拜·玉素甫. SGLT2抑制剂与肾结石风险:一项荟萃分析[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(06): 446-453.
[13] 焦琮舒, 姜泽飞, 赵欣佳, 范林鹃, 陈璐, 石江伟. 单纯针刺治疗原发性高血压的系统评价和Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华针灸电子杂志, 2025, 14(04): 161-166.
[14] 曹婧然, 郭荣鑫, 张煜坤, 陈康寅. 基于Meta分析构建住院老年患者衰弱风险预测模型[J/OL]. 中华老年病研究电子杂志, 2025, 12(03): 31-38.
[15] 边识博, 张翊乔, 张萌, 刘洋. 替尔泊肽对比司美格鲁肽治疗超重或肥胖人群有效性与安全性的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华肥胖与代谢病电子杂志, 2025, 11(02): 121-128.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?