Minimally invasive reduction and percutaneous fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 62 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Majeed ◽  
D. McBride
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Open Reduction ◽  
Percutaneous Fixation ◽  
Minimally Invasive Reduction

scholarly journals Minimally invasive reduction and percutaneous fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (7) ◽  
pp. 418-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haroon Majeed ◽  
James Barrie ◽  
Wendy Munro ◽  
Donald McBride
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Open Reduction ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Percutaneous Fixation ◽  
Calcaneal Fractures ◽  
Minimally Invasive Reduction

The aim of this article is to systematically identify and analyse research evidence available to compare the outcomes of minimally invasive reduction and percutaneous fixation (MIRPF) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Articles from 2000 to 2016 were searched through MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge using Boolean logic and text words. Of the 570 articles identified initially, nine were selected including three randomized controlled trials and six retrospective comparative studies. All nine studies had a total of 1031 patients with 1102 displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Mean follow-up was 33 months. Of these, 602 (54.6%) were treated with MIRPF and 500 (45.4%) were treated with ORIF. Overall incidence of wound-related complications in patients treated with MIRPF was 4.3% (0% to 13%) compared with 21.2% (11.7% to 35%) in the ORIF group Functional outcomes were reported to be better in the minimally invasive group in all studies; however, the results did not reach statistical significance in some studies. All the studies had methodological flaws that put them at either ‘unclear’ or ‘high’ risk of bias for multiple domains. Overall quality of the available evidence is poor in support of either surgical technique due to small sample size, flaws in study designs and high risk of bias for various elements. Individual studies have reported minimally invasive techniques to be an effective alternative with lower risk of wound complications and better functional outcomes. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:418-425. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170043

scholarly journals Comparison of Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Plate Osteosynthesis and Open Reduction Internal Fixation on Proximal Humeral Fracture in Elder Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Zhao ◽  
Yuhui Zhang ◽  
Dongni Johansson ◽  
Xingyu Chen ◽  
Fang Zheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Open Reduction ◽  
Proximal Humeral Fracture ◽  
Plate Osteosynthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Humeral Fracture ◽  
Open Reduction Internal Fixation ◽  
Elder Patients

Objective. The study aims to compare minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of proximal humeral fracture in elder patients. Method. PubMed, Medline, EMbase, Ovid, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wangfang, and VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals were searched to identify all relevant studies from inception to October 2016. Data were analyzed with Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manage 5.2. Results. A total of 630 patients from 8 publications were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that MIPO was superior to ORIF in the treatment of proximal humeral fracture in elder patients. It was reflected in reducing blood loss, operation time, postoperative pain, or fracture healing time of the surgery and in improving recovery of muscle strength. Concerning complications, no significant difference was seen between MIPO and ORIF. Conclusion. The MIPO was more suitable than ORIF for treating proximal humeral fracture in elder patients.

scholarly journals Protocol of BRICS: Brazilian multicentric pragmatic randomised trial of surgical interventions for displaced diaphyseal clavicle fracture study: MIPO versus ORIF for the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e052966
Author(s):  
Adriano Fernando Mendes Jr. ◽  
Rodrigo Fleury Curado ◽  
Jair Moreira Dias Jr. ◽  
José Da Mota Neto ◽  
Oreste Lemos Carrazzone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Open Reduction ◽  
Skin Irritation ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Minimally Invasive Osteosynthesis ◽  
Non Union ◽  
Clavicle Fractures

IntroductionFractures of the diaphysis of the clavicle are common; however, treatment guidelines for this condition are lacking. Surgery is associated with a lower risk of non-union and better functional outcomes but a higher risk of complications. Open reduction and internal fixation with plates and screws are the most commonly performed techniques, but they are associated with paraesthesia in the areas of incisions, extensive surgical exposure and high rates of implant removal. Minimally invasive techniques for treating these fractures have a lower rate of complications. The aim of this study is to evaluate which surgical treatment option (minimally invasive osteosynthesis or open reduction and internal fixation) has better prognosis in terms of complications and reoperations.Methods and analysisThe study proposed is a multicentric, pragmatic, randomised, open-label, superiority clinical trial between minimally invasive osteosynthesis and open reduction and internal fixation for surgical treatment of patients with displaced fractures of the clavicle shaft. In the proposed study, 190 individuals with displaced midshaft clavicle fractures, who require surgery as treatment, will be randomised. The assessment will occur at 2, 6, 12, 24 and 48 weeks, respectively. The primary outcome of the study will be the number of complications and reoperations. For sample size calculation, a moderate effective size between the techniques was considered in a two-tailed test, with 95% confidence and 90% power. Complications include cases of infection, hypertrophic scarring, non-union, refracture, implant failure, hypoesthesia, skin irritation and shoulder pain. Reoperations are defined as the number of surgeries for pseudoarthrosis, implant failure, infection and elective removal of the implant.Ethics and disseminationStudy approved by the institutional ethics committee (number 34249120.9.0000.5505—V.3). The results will be disseminated by publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations in medical meetings.Trial registration numberRBR-3czz68)/UTN U1111-1257-8953.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document