• Liangcong Hu, Yuan Xiong, Bobin Mi, Adriana C Panayi, Wu Zhou, Yi Liu, Jing Liu, Hang Xue, Chengcheng Yan, Abudula Abududilibaier, Lang Chen, and Guohui Liu.
• Department of Orthopedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1277, Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, 430022, China.
• J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Jan 25; 14 (1): 30.

BackgroundDistal metadiaphyseal tibial fractures are commonly seen lower limb fractures. Intramedullary nail fixation (IMN) and plate internal fixation (PL) are the two mainstay treatments for tibial fractures, but agreement on the best internal fixation for distal tibial fractures is still controversial. This meta-analysis was designed to compare the success of IMN and PL fixations in the treatment of distal metadiaphyseal tibial fractures, in terms of complications and functional recovery.MethodsA systematic research of the literature was conducted to identify relevant articles that were published in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, SpringerLink, Clinical Trials.gov, and OVID from the database inception to August 2018. All studies comparing the complication rate and functional improvement of I2MN and PL were included. Data on the 12 main outcomes were collected and analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3.ResultsEleven studies were included in the current meta-analysis. A significant difference in malunion (RR = 1.76, 95%CI 1.21-2.57, P = 0.003), superficial infection (RR = 0.29, 95%CI 0.13-0.63, P = 0.002), FFI (MD = 0.09, 95%CI 0.01-0.17, P = 0.02), and knee pain (RR = 3.85, 95%CI 2.07-7.16, P < 0.0001) was noted between the IMN group and PL group. No significant difference was seen in the operation time (MD = - 10.46, 95%CI - 21.69-0.77, P = 0.07), radiation time (MD = 7.95, 95%CI - 6.65-22.55, P = 0.29), union time (MD = - 0.21, 95%Cl - 0.82-0.40, P = 0.49.), nonunion (RR = 2.17,95%CI 0.79-5.99, P = 0.15), deep infection (RR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.35-2.06, P = 0.72), delay union (RR = 0.92, 95%CI 0.45-1.87, P = 0.82), AOFAS (MD 1.26, 95%Cl - 1.19-3.70, P = 0.31), and Disability Rating Index in 6 or 12 months (MD = - 3.75, 95%CI - 9.32-1.81, P = 0.19, MD = - 17.11, 95%CI - 59.37-25.16, P = 0.43, respectively).ConclusionsAlthough no significant difference was seen between IMN and PL fixation with regards to the operation time, radiation time, nonunion, deep infection delay union, union time, AOFAS, and Disability Rating Index, significant differences were seen in occurrence of malunion, superficial infection, FFI, and knee pain. Based on this evidence, IMN appears to be a superior choice for functional improvement of the ankle and reduction of postoperative wound superficial infection. PL internal fixation seems to be more advantageous in achieving anatomical reduction and decreasing knee pain.

19 keywords...

hide…