A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following external fixation or open reduction internal fixation for distal intra-articular tibial fractures: an update
- 8 Downloads
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing physical function and complications following DIATF surgery with external fixation (EF) or open reduction internal fixation (ORIF).
A search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Open Grey and Orthopaedic Proceedings. Studies with a level of evidence of I–III on patients (≥ 18 years) with DIATFs operated on with either EF or ORIF were included. A total of 3814 studies were identified. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomised controlled trials and the ROBINS-I tool for nonrandomised studies were used to assess risk of bias.
Nine studies with 478 patients, 271 ORIF and 197 EF met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up ranged from 12 to 38 months. The meta-analysis showed a higher incidence of superficial wound infections (RR = 2.94, 95% CI 1.62–5.34, p = 0.0004) and malunions (RR = 2.62, 95% CI 1.27–5.43, p = 0.009) in the EF group compared to the ORIF group. Also worse physical function was associated with the EF group. However, the overall evidence was low.
This systematic review is the first to report on physical function following DIATF surgery. In general, decreased physical function was reported. The meta-analysis showed lower incidence of superficial wound infection and malunion rates in the ORIF group. Heterogeneity was low. In conclusion, this review reports lower complication rates following ORIF for DIATF. The overall evidence was limited, and therefore, the authors cannot recommend ORIF to be superior to EF treatment for DIATF. More multi-centre studies with larger sample sizes are needed to assess long-term physical function and complications following DIATF surgery.
Level of evidence
KeywordsDistal intra-articular tibia fractures ORIF EF Physical function Complications
This study was funded by Syddansk Universitet.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of Interest.
- 3.Egol KA, Wolinsky P, Koval KJ (2000) Open reduction and internal fixation of tibial pilon fractures. Foot Ankle Clin 5(4):873–885Google Scholar
- 12.Mauffrey C, Vasario G, Battiston B, Beazley J, Seligson D (2011) Tibial pilon fractures: a review of incidence, diagnose, treatment and complications. Acta Orthop Belg 77(4):432–440Google Scholar
- 14.Wang D, Xiang JP, Chen XH, Zhu QT (2015) A meta-analysis for postoperative complications in tibial plafond fracture: open reduction and internal fixation versus limited internal fixation combined with external fixator. J Foot Ankle Surg 54(4):646–651. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2014.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.CEBM (Center for Evidence Based Medicine). http://www.cebm.net/. Accessed 17 Dec 2012
- 17.Rüedi T, Algöever M (1979) Fractures of the lower end of the tibia. Clin Orthop Relat Res 138:105–110Google Scholar
- 19.Hunt KJ, Hurwit D (2013) Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 95(16):e118(1–9). https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.l.01476.external frame versus internal locking plate for articular pilon fracture fixation. ISRCTN98152560. Protocol registration: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN98152560
- 20.International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. World Health Organisation. http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/
- 21.System for information on Grey Litterature in Europe. Open Grey. http://www.opengrey.eu
- 23.Catalogue SUDOC. Systeme Universitaire de Documentation. http://www.sudoc.fr/07047558X
- 24.Catalogue SUDOC. Systeme Universitaire de Documentation. http://www.sudoc.fr/176519319
- 26.Sterne JAC, Higgins JPT, Reeves BC (2016) On the behalf of the development group for ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions, version 7. http://www.riskofbias.info
- 27.Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. www.cochrane-handbook.org
- 33.Binda T, Faluomi M, D’Angelo F, Cherubino P (2011) Tibial pilon fractures: results in the medium- to long-term. J Orthopaed Traumatol 12(suppl 1):s89–s123Google Scholar
- 35.Wang J, Song H, Dong Z, Wang H (2005) The treatment of mini-invasive external fixator for the distal tibial fracture. Chin J Orthop Trauma 7:786–787Google Scholar
- 39.Minator Sajjadi M, Ebrahimpour A, Okhovatpour MA, Karimi A, Zandi R, Sharifzadeh A (2018) The outcomes of pilon fracture treatment: primary open reduction and internal fixation versus two-stage approach. Arch Bone Jt Surg 6(5):412–419Google Scholar
- 41.Deivaraju C, Vlasak R, Sadasivan K (2016) Staged treatment of pilon fractures. J Orthop 12(suppl 1):s1–s6Google Scholar
- 48.Bacon S, Smith WR, Morgan SJ, Hasenboehler E, Philips G, Williams A, Ziran BH, Stahel PF (2008) A retrospective analysis of comminuted intra-articular fractures of the tibial plafond: open reduction and internal fixation versus external Ilizarov fixation. Injury 39(2):196–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2007.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 49.Xiao R, Tang Q, Cai C (2005) Treatments of tibial pilon fractures with a combination of limited internal and external fixation. Chin J Repar Reconstr Surg 19(8):603–606Google Scholar
- 55.Helfet DL, Koval K, Pappas J, Sanders RW, DiPasquale T (1994) Intraarticular “pilon” fracture of the tibia. Clin Orthop Relat Res 298:221–228Google Scholar