Post-operative outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation versus circular external fixation in treatment of tibial plafond fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Clicks: 183
ID: 258342
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
183 views
28 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #21 of 26 articles by views in Injury
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Tibial plafond fractures (TPF) are complex injuries often resulting in poor outcomes. Combination of articular impaction, metaphysealcomminution and soft-tissue injury results in a significant treatment challenge. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare post-operative complications and functional outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus circular external fixation (CEF) for treatment of TPF.A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane library was undertaken. All studies published in English language comparing ORIF with CEF for treatment of TPF were included.5 comparative studies with 239 fractures met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in rates of non-union, malunion, superficial infection, deep infection, and secondary arthrodesis between the two treatment groups. Significantly higher rate of unplanned metalwork removal (RR 5.68, 95% CI 1.13 to 28.55, p = 0.04) and lower rate of post-traumatic arthritis (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.78, p = 0.003) were found in patients that underwent ORIF. 1 study showed significantly lower functional outcomes scores with CEF (p< 0.05), whereas 3 studies found comparable functional outcomes between the two treatment groups. Overall, there was a preference in treating more severe injuries with CEF.CEF and ORIF are both acceptable treatment options for surgical management of TPF, with comparable post-operative complication rates and functional outcomes. This study highlights paucity of high-quality evidence regarding the optimal fixation method for TPF.
| Reference Key |
maliktabassum2020postoperativeinjury
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Malik-Tabassum, Khalid;Pillai, Kavya;Hussain, Yusuf;Bleibleh, Sabri;Babu, Satish;Giannoudis, Peter V;Tosounidis, Theodoros H; |
| Journal | Injury |
| Year | 2020 |
| DOI |
S0020-1383(20)30401-0
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.