These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: External fixation versus intramedullary nailing for the management of open tibial fracture: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
    Author: Alsharef JF, Ghaddaf AA, AlQuhaibi MS, Shaheen EA, AboAljadiel LH, Alharbi AS, AlHidri BY, Alamri MK, Makhdom AM.
    Journal: Int Orthop; 2023 Dec; 47(12):3077-3097. PubMed ID: 37491610.
    Abstract:
    AIM: Tibial shaft fractures are the most common type of long-bone fractures. External fixation (EF) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) are widely used surgical techniques for the definitive fixation of open tibial shaft fractures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare EF to IMN for the definitive fixation of open tibial fractures. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for eligible studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared EF to IMN for skeletally mature adults with open tibial fracture (Gustilo I, II, and III). We evaluated the following outcomes: superficial infection, pin-track infection, deep infection, malunion, nonunion, delayed union, and implant/hardware failure. The risk ratio (RR) was used to represent the desired outcomes. The statistical analysis was performed using the random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 12 RCTs that enrolled 1090 participants were deemed eligible for the analysis. EF showed a significantly higher rate of superficial infection, pin track infection, and malunion compared to IMN (RR = 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34 to 3.95; RR = 13.52, 95% CI: 6.16 to 29.66; RR = 2.29, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.73, respectively). No substantial difference was found between EF and IMN in terms of deep infection, nonunion, delayed union, or implant/hardware failure (RR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.98; RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; RR = 1.50, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.33; RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.60, respectively). DISCUSSION: The findings of our meta-analysis are consistent with the previous systematic reviews excepts for the implant/hardware failure which was found to be significant in favour of IMN by one of the previous reviews. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirms that IMN is better than EF with respect to clinical outcomes and complication rate for the definitive fixation of open tibial fracture.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]