Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous fixation and open reduction internal fixation for patella fractures: a meta-analysis

Background Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) has long been the conventional procedure for managing displaced patella fracture. This surgical approach has certain drawbacks, which might affect clinical outcomes and patient prognosis. Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation (MIPF) was proposed to overcome these disadvantages. Few in-depth investigations have been performed to determine the superiority of MIPF over ORIF. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of MIPF and ORIF for patella fractures. Methods The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for relevant studies from November 26 to December 17, 2020. Non-English publications and pediatric orthopedic articles were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager, version 5.4, with mean differences (MDs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were the pain score, knee range of motion, and joint functionality. The secondary outcomes were the surgical time, complications, and implant removal rate. Results Six articles with a total of 304 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that patients with MIPF had a significantly reduced pain score (MD = − 1.30, 95% CI = − 1.77 to −0.82; p < 0.00001) and increased knee extension angles (MD = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.18 to 1.25; p = 0.009) at 3-month follow-up. Furthermore, knee flexion angles (MD = 8.96, 95% CI = 5.81 to 12.1; p < 0.00001) and joint functionality (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.86; p = 0.001) had statistically improved at 2 years. However, no difference was observed between MIPF and ORIF with regard to the surgical time. The risk of complications (OR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.18; p < 0.00001) and implant removal rate (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.57; p = 0.003) were significantly lower with MIPF than with ORIF. Conclusions MIPF is more favorable than ORIF in terms of the pain score, knee range of motion, joint functionality, complications, and implant removal rate. Thus, it can be adopted as an alternative to ORIF.

RETRACTION: Open reduction internal fixation versus minimally invasive percutaneous fixation for calcaneus fractures: Mid-term outcomes and social consequences

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the mid-term clinical, functional, radiological, and socioeconomic outcomes of calcaneus fractures treated with open reduction-internal fixation (ORIF) versus minimally invasive percutaneous fixation (MIPF). Patients and methods: A total of 48 patients (34 males, 14 females; mean age: 44.05 years; range, 19 to 64 years) who underwent either ORIF or MIPF for calcaneus fractures between January 2010 and January 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups as the ORIF group (n=36) and MIPF group (n=12). The American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, Maryland Foot Score (MFS), and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores were assessed for the clinical assessment. The mean duration of operation, mean length of hospitalization, pedobarographic gait analysis, the incidence of contralateral knee pain, increased shoe size, and change of profession due to significant heel pain were also evaluated. The Böhler’s angle, Gissane angle, and calcaneal varus were measured for radiological assessment. Results: There was a significant difference in the mean operation time (p=0.001) and length of hospitalization (p=0.001) between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the pre- and postoperative third-year Böhler’s and Gissane angles (p=0.05, p=0.07, p=0.09, respectively). There were no significant differences between the postoperative first-, second-, and third-year AOFAS, MFS, and SF-36 scores (p=0.57, p=0.55 p=0.85, p=0.64, p=0.21, p=0.51, p=0.20, p=0.15, p=0.22, respectively). Thirteen patients in the ORIF group and five patients in the MIPF group changed their job due to significant heel pain. The increased shoe size was correlated with the residual calcaneal varus (p=0.001). Conclusion: Both methods have pros and cons in the treatment of calcaneal fractures. Although MIPF is more advantageous in terms of operation duration and length of hospitalization, more favorable radiological results can be obtained with ORIF. Calcaneal varus should be corrected to prevent the increased shoe size and contralateral knee pain.