BACKGROUND To compare the efficacy and complications between reconstruction nail and hollow screw+plate in patients with femoral shaft and femoral neck fracture. METHODS The full text of studies on clinical efficacy involving reconstruction nail and hollow screw+plate was retrieved from multiple databases. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted for meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and bias analysis. The meta-analysis was conducted with respect to the operation time, blood loss, healing time of the femoral shaft, healing time of the femoral neck, and complications. Finally, 10 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 991 patients. RESULTS The meta-analysis suggested better characteristics for the reconstruction nail compared with the hollow screw+plate regarding operation time (OR = - 82.41, 95% CI [- 91.72, - 73.10], P < 0.00001; P for heterogeneity < 0.00001, I2 = 98%), blood loss (OR = - 388.01, 95% CI [- 422.95, - 353.06], P < 0.00001; P for heterogeneity < 0.00001, I2 = 99%), healing time of femoral shaft (MD = - 3.89, 95% CI [- 4.74, - 3.05], P < 0.00001; P for heterogeneity < 0.00001, I2 = 99%), healing time of femoral neck (MD = - 4.04, 95% CI [- 4.33, - 3.75], P < 0.00001; P for heterogeneity = 0.008, I2 = 60%), and complications (OR = 0.47, 95% CI [0.31, 0.73], P = 0.0006; P for heterogeneity = 1.00, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION This meta-analysis shows that a reconstruction nail is a more efficient and safer treatment than a hollow screw+plate for patients with femoral shaft and femoral neck fracture.

中文翻译：

---

股骨干与股骨颈骨折的治疗比较：荟萃分析。

背景比较重建钉与空心螺钉+钢板治疗股骨干股骨颈骨折的疗效及并发症。方法从多个数据库中检索重建钉和空心螺钉+钢板的临床疗效研究全文。Review Manager 5.0 被用于荟萃分析、敏感性分析和偏倚分析。对手术时间、失血量、股骨干愈合时间、股骨颈愈合时间和并发症进行荟萃分析。最后，10 项研究符合纳入标准，包括 991 名患者。结果 荟萃分析表明，与空心螺钉+钢板相比，重建钉在手术时间方面具有更好的特性（OR = - 82.41, 95% CI [- 91.72, - 73.10]，P < 0.00001；异质性 P < 0.00001，I2 = 98%），失血量（OR = - 388.01，95% CI [- 422.95，- 353.06]，P < 0.00001；异质性 P < 0.00001，I2 = 99%）股骨干（MD = - 3.89, 95% CI [- 4.74, - 3.05]，P < 0.00001；异质性 P < 0.00001，I2 = 99%），股骨颈愈合时间（MD = - 4.04, 95% CI [ - 4.33, - 3.75]，P < 0.00001；异质性 P = 0.008，I2 = 60%）和并发症（OR = 0.47，95% CI [0.31, 0.73]，P = 0.0006；异质性 P，= I 21。 = 0%）。结论 本荟萃分析表明，对于股骨干和股骨颈骨折患者，重建钉比空心螺钉+钢板更有效、更安全。股骨干愈合时间（MD = - 3.89, 95% CI [- 4.74, - 3.05]，P < 0.00001；异质性 P < 0.00001，I2 = 99%），股骨颈愈合时间（MD = - 4.04, 95 % CI [- 4.33, - 3.75]，P < 0.00001；异质性 P = 0.008，I2 = 60%）和并发症（OR = 0.47，95% CI [0.31, 0.73]，P = 0.0006；异质性 P = 1.00，I2 = 0%）。结论 本荟萃分析表明，对于股骨干和股骨颈骨折患者，重建钉比空心螺钉+钢板更有效、更安全。股骨干愈合时间（MD = - 3.89, 95% CI [- 4.74, - 3.05]，P < 0.00001；异质性 P < 0.00001，I2 = 99%），股骨颈愈合时间（MD = - 4.04, 95 % CI [- 4.33, - 3.75]，P < 0.00001；异质性 P = 0.008，I2 = 60%）和并发症（OR = 0.47，95% CI [0.31, 0.73]，P = 0.0006；异质性 P = 1.00，I2 = 0%）。结论 本荟萃分析表明，对于股骨干和股骨颈骨折患者，重建钉比空心螺钉+钢板更有效、更安全。异质性的 P = 1.00，I2 = 0%）。结论 本荟萃分析表明，对于股骨干和股骨颈骨折患者，重建钉比空心螺钉+钢板更有效、更安全。异质性的 P = 1.00，I2 = 0%）。结论 本荟萃分析表明，对于股骨干和股骨颈骨折患者，重建钉比空心螺钉+钢板更有效、更安全。