Advertisement

Open versus closed treatment of distal tibia physeal fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Waleed A. Asad
  • Manaf H. S. Younis
  • Abdulaziz F. Ahmed
  • Talal Ibrahim
Original Article • ANKLE - FRACTURES

Abstract

Aims

Distal tibia physeal fractures can lead to growth complications such as premature physeal closure (PPC), angular deformity and leg length discrepancy. The aim of our study was to systematically review the literature to assess whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is associated with lower rates of PPC compared to closed treatment.

Materials and methods

We searched several databases from 1966 to 2016 for studies that evaluated ORIF versus closed treatment of distal tibia physeal fractures. We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model to pool odds ratios (OR) for the comparison of PPC rate between children undergoing ORIF versus closed treatment. We also investigated the PPC rate in Salter–Harris (S–H) type I and II fractures. Descriptive, quantitative and qualitative data were extracted.

Results

Out of the 253 articles identified, six retrospective cohort studies were eligible, with a total of 970 distal tibia physeal fractures. The pooled OR of PPC between ORIF and closed treatment showed no statistically significant difference [OR = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48, 1.97; I 2 = 49.8%, p = 0.076]. No significant difference in the rate of PPC was detected in S–H type I and II fractures with ORIF and closed treatment [OR = 1.25, 95% CI 0.72, 2.16; I 2 = 32.1%, p = 0.22].

Conclusions

The cumulative evidence at present does not indicate an association between the method of treatment of distal tibia physeal fractures and the risk of PPC. Both treatment types are feasible, but less surgical-related complications are associated with closed treatment.

Level of evidence

III.

Keywords

Distal tibia Physeal Fracture Open reduction Closed reduction Treatment 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Kraus R, Kaiser M (2008) Growth disturbances of the distal tibia after physeal separation—what do we know, what do we believe we know? A review of current literature. Eur J Pediatr Surg 18(5):295–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peterson HA, Brewster RC, Johnson KA (1977) Epiphyseal growth plate injuries of the distal tibia. Minn Med 60(1):44–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oh WH, Craig C, Banks HH (1974) Epiphyseal injuries. Pediatr Clin North Am 21(2):407–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spiegel PG, Cooperman DR, Laros GS (1978) Epiphyseal fractures of the distal ends of the tibia and fibula. A retrospective study of two hundred and thirty-seven cases in children. J Bone Jt Surg Am 60(8):1046–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kling TF Jr, Bright RW, Hensinger RN (1984) Distal tibial physeal fractures in children that may require open reduction. J Bone Jt Surg Am 66(5):647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dugan G, Herndon WA, McGuire R (1987) Distal tibial physeal injuries in children: a different treatment concept. J Orthop Trauma 1(1):63–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pacicca D, Cramer K, Tornetta P (2001) Is anatomic reduction necessary for displaced physeal fractures of the distal tibia? In: Programs and abstracts of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 68th Annual Meeting. Paper No. 131Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barmada A, Gaynor T, Mubarak SJ (2003) Premature physeal closure following distal tibia physeal fractures: a new radiographic predictor. J Pediatr Orthop 23(6):733–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rohmiller MT, Gaynor TP, Pawelek J, Mubarak SJ (2006) Salter–Harris I and II fractures of the distal tibia: Does mechanism of injury relate to premature physeal closure? J Pediatr Orthop 26(3):322–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leary JT, Handling M, Talerico M, Yong L, Bowe JA (2009) Physeal fractures of the distal tibia: predictive factors of premature physeal closure and growth arrest. J Pediatr Orthop 29(4):356–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schurz M, Binder H, Platzer P, Schulz M, Hajdu S, Vecsei V (2010) Physeal injuries of the distal tibia: long-term results in 376 patients. Int Orthop 34(4):547–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wirth T, Byers S, Byard RW, Hopwood JJ, Foster BK (1994) The implantation of cartilaginous and periosteal tissue into growth plate defects. Int Orthop 18(4):220–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Phieffer LS, Meyer RA Jr, Gruber HE, Easley M, Wattenbarger JM (2000) Effect of interposed periosteum in an animal physeal fracture model. Clin Orthop Relat Res 376:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Russo F, Moor MA, Mubarak SJ, Pennock AT (2013) Salter–Harris II fractures of the distal tibia: Does surgical management reduce the risk of premature physeal closure? J Pediatr Orthop 33(5):524–529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):e1–e34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salter RB, Harris WR (1963) Injuries involving the epiphyseal plate. J Bone Jt Surg Am 45(3):587–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Petersen J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P (2004) The Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm
  18. 18.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Higgins J, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/
  20. 20.
    Cai H, Wang Z, Cai H (2015) Surgical indications for distal tibial epiphyseal fractures in children. Orthopedics 38(3):e189–e195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seel EH, Noble S, Clarke NM, Uglow MG (2011) Outcome of distal tibial physeal injuries. J Pediatr Orthop B 20(4):242–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kay RM, Matthys GA (2001) Pediatric ankle fractures: evaluation and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 9(4):268–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Section of OrthopedicsHamad General HospitalDohaQatar

Personalised recommendations