手术治疗拇指腕掌关节骨性关节炎的系统评价

Surgical Treatment for Trapeziometacarpal Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

目的系统评价不同手术方法治疗拇指腕掌关节骨性关节炎的疗效和安全性。方法计算机检索MEDLINE(1966-2005)、Cochrane图书馆临床对照试验注册资料库(2005年第3期)和中国生物医学文献数据库(1978-2005), 手检所获资料的参考文献,收集所有相关的随机对照试验,并对其方法学质量进行评价,而后进行Meta分析及定性分析。结果共纳入7个随机对照试验(RCT),且均有不同程度的方法学缺陷。目前的证据显示,大多角骨切除、韧带重建、肌腱间置术(LRTI)与单纯大多角骨切除术的近期效果．包括疼痛缓解、握力、拇指捏力、活动度、手的功能及患者满意度方面,差异均无统计学意义,但LRTI术后并发症发生率高于单纯大多角骨切除术。关于LRTI与单纯大多角骨切除术相比是否可以减少掌骨下沉,以及成形关节间隙是否与拇指力量相关,目前仅有混杂证据。有中等质量的证据表明,在拇指力量、患者满意度和第一掌骨下沉方面．LRTI 的效果与大多角骨切除、韧带重建术(LR)相似;有有限证据表明,LR术后手功能评分好于LRTI,而两者缓解疼痛的效果相似;有混杂证据支持LR术后拇指活动度好于LRTI。仅有有限证据表明LIRI与Swanson硅橡胶假体植入术的效果相似。尚缺乏关于其他手术方法,如掌骨截骨术、关节融合术、人工关节置换术的随机对照试验。结论尚无证据支持某一种手术方法的效果优于其他方法。需要更多高质量 RCT和更长的随访时间做进一步研究。

Objective To compare the effectiveness and complications of various surgical techniques in the treatment of the osteoarthritis of the trapeziometacarpal joint. Methods We searched MEDLINE （1966 to 2005）, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register （Issue 3, 2005） and CBM （1978 to 2005）, and handsearched the references of relevant studies. Only randomized controlled trials were included. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies, extracted data, and performed quantitative and qualitative analyses. Results Seven studies were included, and all had some methodological shortcomings. There was strong evidence that in the short term, ligamentous reconstruction, tendon interposition （LRTI） and trapeziectomy alone provide similar results with regard to pain relief, grip and pinch strength, range of thumb motion, hand function and overall satisfaction of patients, but more complications occur with LRTI than with trapeziectomy alone. Conflicting evidence was found about whether LRTI resulted in less subsidence of the first metacarpal bone than trapeziectomy alone. There was moderate evidence that LRTI and ligament reconstruction without tendon interposition （LR） did not have significant differences in thumb strength, patient satisfaction and subsidence of the first metacarpal bone. Limited evidence showed that LR produced better functional scores than LRTI and similar results in pain relief to LRTI. Conflicting evidence supported that LR resulted in greater motion range of thumb than LRTI. Only limited evidence showed that effectiveness was similar between LRTI and Swanson implant. We did not find randomized controlled trials about other surgical techniques. Conclusion Not enough evidence supports superiority of one technique over another. More high quality randomized controlled trials and long term follow-up are necessary.