Copyright
©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Clin Cases. Apr 26, 2023; 11(12): 2753-2765
Published online Apr 26, 2023. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i12.2753
Published online Apr 26, 2023. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i12.2753
Ref. | No. of patients | Gender (male/female) | Age (mean yr) | Follow-up time (mo) | After injury (mo) | No. of patients who underwent MUSO | No. of patients who underwent DUSO |
Bernstein et al[4], 2004 | 27 | 13/14 | 37.6 | 17.4 | 13.8 | 11 | 16 |
Marquez-Lara et al[12], 2017 | 35 | 17/18 | 43.9 | 18.5 | Not reported | 14 | 21 |
Sennwald et al[10], 2013 | 29 | 45277 | 42.9 | 54 | 5.5 | 16 | 13 |
Constantine et al[41], 2000 | 22 | 45152 | 40.5 | 36 | Not reported | 11 | 11 |
Smet et al[11], 2014 | 40 | 45229 | 40.4 | 29 | Not reported | 12 | 28 |
Oh et al[9], 2018 | 42 | 17/25 | 53.6 | 35.5 | 29.5 | 19 | 23 |
- Citation: Deng HL, Lu ML, Tang ZM, Mao QL, Zhao JM. Is metaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomy superior to diaphyseal ulnar shortening osteotomy in the treatment of ulnar impaction syndrome? A meta-analysis. World J Clin Cases 2023; 11(12): 2753-2765
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v11/i12/2753.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v11.i12.2753