Table 2 Characteristics of the Included Studies
Included studies | Study design | Country | Studycharacteristics | Follow up (months) | Factors | NOS score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wang T 2014 [16] | Case–control | China | 61 males, 18–68 y | 6–90 | Age, sex,Garden classification, reduction quality,reduction methods, injury-operationinterval, preoperative traction, weight-bearingtime, implant removal | 9 |
Khoo CCH 2014 [17] | Case–control | Malaysia | 39 males, 30–59 y | Unclear | Age, injury-operationinterval, fracture location, integrity of posterior cortex, adequacy of fracture reduction | 6 |
Kang JS 2016 [18] | Case–control | Korea | Unclear, 16–18 y | 24–148 | Age, injury-operationinterval, osteoporosis, displacement, quality of reduction, firm fixation | 6 |
Wang C 2015 [19] | Case–control | China | 62 males, 51.9 ± 9.9 y | 34–41 | Age, gender, length of stay, fracture laterality, mechanismof injury, procedure delay, duration of surgery, implantconfiguration, interval to full weight-bearing, preoperativeGarden classification, preoperative traction, postoperativevisual analog scale (VAS), Parker score, implant status,residual displacement | 8 |
Zhang C 2017 [20] | Case–control | China | Unclear, 50–70 y | 36–48 | Age, sex, ASA scale, laterality (L/R), body mass index (BMI), BMD, Garden classification, Bone mineral density, total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high density lipoprotein (HDL), low density lipoprotein (LDL), apolipoprotein A1 (Apo-A1), apolipoprotein B (Apo-B) | 6 |
Schweitzer D 2013 [21] | Case–control | Chile | 22 males, 46.45 ± 11.59y | 24–144 | Age, injury-operation interval, anatomicreduction, mechanism of injury, fracture reduction mode | 9 |
Simona P 2008 [22] | Case–control | France | Unclear | Unclear | Garden classification, Pauwels classification | 6 |
Ai ZS 2013 [23] | Case–control | China | 44 males, > 45 y | 28–60 | Age, gender, type of fracture(Garden classification), timing of the reduction, quality ofthe reduction (Garden classification), postoperative durationto full weight bearing, implant status (removal vs. maintenance),preoperative traction, fracture side | 8 |
Wang CT 2018 [24] | Case–control | Taiwan, China | 43 males, 50–60 y | 12–96 | Garden classification, reduction quality,Pauwels classification | 6 |
Zeng XS 2017 [25] | Case–control | China | 142 males, 50–94 y | 37–46 | Age, sex, ASA scale, laterality (L/R), BMI, FNBMD, Garden classification, Garden index, injury-operation interval, weight-bearing activity time, TC, TG, HDL, LDL, Apo-A1, Apo-B | 9 |
Koaban S 2019 [26] | Case–control | Saudi Arabia | 60 males, 18–70 y | > 13 | Gender, presence of comorbid conditions, mode of injury, multiple trauma, Garden classification,fracture side, time of fixation, type of reduction, full weight-bearing follow-up | 9 |
Razik F 2012 [27] | Case–control | UK | Unclear | Unclear | Fracture side, time of fixation, fracture classification, mechanism, complications, method of fixation | 7 |
Schwartsmann CR 2014 [28] | Case–control | Brazil | 56 males, 18–70 y | 64.6 | Sex, age, Garden grade,time of surgery, reduction | 7 |
Zhang YL 2016 [29] | Case–control | China | 21.6 ± 6.0 | Garden types | 6 | |
Jo S 2016 [30] | Case–control | Korea | 25 males, 16–69 y | 24–75 | Anatomical classification, Garden classification, Pauwels classification | 6 |
Zhao HX 2016 [31] | Case–control | China | 61 males, > 18 y | 21.6 ± 6.0 | Sex, age, Garden grade, time of surgery, Garden index | 7 |
Mao YJ 2005 [32] | Case–control | China | 134 males, 13–70 y | 12–101 | Sex, age, Garden classification, reduction quality, injury-operationinterval, preoperative traction, weight-bearingtime, implant removal, fracture reduction mode | 9 |