scholarly journals A meta-analysis of modified Stoppa approach and ilioinguinal approach in open reduction and internal fixation of Pelviacetabular fractures

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 832-837
Author(s):  
Dr. Kazim Mahmood ◽  
Dr. Darshan MS ◽  
Dr. Deepak Kumar Maley ◽  
Dr. Anas Ibrahim Delair ◽  
Dr. Ramsha Baig
Keyword(s):  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Open Reduction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Ilioinguinal Approach ◽  
Stoppa Approach

Comparison of immobilization periods following open reduction and internal fixation of distal radius fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdullah A. Ghaddaf ◽  
Ahmed S. Abdulhamid ◽  
Mohammed S. Alomari ◽  
Mohammed S. Alquhaibi ◽  
Abdulaziz A. Alshehri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Distal Radius Fracture ◽  
Distal Radius ◽  
Open Reduction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Radius Fracture

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 Two-stage open reduction and internal fixation versus limited internal fixation combined with external fixation: a meta-analysis of postoperative complications in patients with severe Pilon fractures

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (7) ◽  
pp. 2525-2536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xueliang Cui ◽  
Hui Chen ◽  
Yunfeng Rui ◽  
Yang Niu ◽  
He Li
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Bone Healing ◽  
Open Reduction ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Superficial Infection ◽  
Tibial Pilon ◽  
Pilon Fractures

Objectives Two-stage open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and limited internal fixation combined with external fixation (LIFEF) are two widely used methods to treat Pilon injury. However, which method is superior to the other remains controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to quantitatively compare two-stage ORIF and LIFEF and clarify which method is better with respect to postoperative complications in the treatment of tibial Pilon fractures. Methods We conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively compare the postoperative complications between two-stage ORIF and LIFEF. Eight studies involving 360 fractures in 359 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Results The two-stage ORIF group had a significantly lower risk of superficial infection, nonunion, and bone healing problems than the LIFEF group. However, no significant differences in deep infection, delayed union, malunion, arthritis symptoms, or chronic osteomyelitis were found between the two groups. Conclusion Two-stage ORIF was associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications with respect to superficial infection, nonunion, and bone healing problems than LIFEF for tibial Pilon fractures. Level of evidence 2.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment of acute lisfranc injuries: Open reduction and internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilhan Alcelik ◽  
Carl Fenton ◽  
Gary Hannant ◽  
Musaab Abdelrahim ◽  
Charlie Jowett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Open Reduction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lisfranc Injuries

Arthrodesis or Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Lisfranc Injuries: A Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 193864002097141
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Levy ◽  
David Yatsonsky ◽  
Muhammad Z. Moral ◽  
Jiayong Liu ◽  
Nabil A. Ebraheim
Keyword(s):  
Internal Fixation ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Complication Rate ◽  
Open Reduction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Open Reduction Internal Fixation ◽  
T Test ◽  
Fracture Dislocation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Vas Scores

The purpose of this study is to determine if arthrodesis, compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), produces favorable American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and to determine if differences in complication, revision surgery, and secondary arthrodesis rates exist for patients with Lisfranc fracture/dislocation injuries. Searches were performed in PubMed using the keywords “Lisfranc fracture,” “metatarsal fracture,” “ORIF,” “open reduction internal fixation,” “arthrodesis,” and “fusion.” These criteria left 183 articles for review. Exclusions left 21 articles and 2 translations of Chinese abstracts. Data analysis was performed using Student’s 2-sample t test for samples of equal variance, and chi-square test for goodness of fit. The t test revealed a significant difference ( P = .03) between the average AOFAS score for patients who underwent primary arthrodesis (84.7 ± 6.14) compared with those who were treated with ORIF (78.9 ± 5.09). There was no significant difference for the average VAS scores ( P = .33) of the arthrodesis and ORIF groups. The complication rate of arthrodesis patients was significantly lower than ORIF patients ( P = .04), and the rates of revision surgery ( P = .22) and secondary arthrodesis ( P = .53) were not significant between the groups. The results of this study indicate that arthrodesis may be a better surgical option than ORIF, due to the higher functional scores and the lower complication rate. Levels of Evidence: Level III: A meta-analysis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document