Evidence Hub

Nonunion Rates Among Ulnar-Shortening Osteotomy for Ulnar Impaction Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Jessell M. Owens, Jocelyn Compton, M. Day, N. Glass, Ericka A. Lawler

Journal of Hand Surgery-American Volume, 2019

1,423 participants · 40 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to systematically review all available literature reporting nonunion rates of ulnar-shortening osteotomies (USO) used for the treatment of ulnar impaction syndrome (UIS) and to compare those rates among transverse versus oblique cuts for the osteotomy.

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies that evaluated outcomes of both transverse and oblique USO for UIS. Level of evidence was determined by 2 independent reviewers. Studies were screened based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. A total of 37 studies (1,423 patients) were included in final analysis. The average rate of nonunion and delayed union for each group (transverse and oblique osteotomy) was calculated.

RESULTS

The average rate of nonunion among all osteotomies was 4.0%. The average rate of nonunion was 4.16% and 3.86% in transverse osteotomies and oblique osteotomies, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant. The average rate of delayed union, in those studies that reported delayed union, was 5.7%. The average rate of delayed union was 7.41% and 4.1% in transverse osteotomies and oblique osteotomies, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our review of the literature, there is no difference in the rate of nonunion between transverse and oblique osteotomies.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,423 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free