Arthroscopy-Assisted Reduction Percutaneous Internal Fixation Versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation for Tibial Plateau Fracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Issue 12 (14th December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jiang, Liangjun; Chen, Erman; Huang, Lu; Wang, Cong
• Is Part Of: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. Volume 9:Issue 12(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-12-14
• Subjects: arthroscopy-assisted reduction percutaneous internal fixation (ARIF) -- open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) -- tibial plateau fracture -- clinical function -- faster recovery -- intra-articular lesions -- meta-analysis; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Arthroscopy -- Periodicals; Arthroplasty -- Periodicals; Knee -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1177/23259671211027838
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2325-9671

Abstract

Background: Arthroscopy-assisted reduction percutaneous internal fixation (ARIF) has emerged recently as an alternative treatment method in treating lower-energy tibial plateau fractures. To date, the comparison of clinical efficacy between ARIF and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) is limited, with divergent conclusions. Purpose: To review studies on the clinical efficacy of ARIF and ORIF in the treatment of tibial plateau fracture. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A search was conducted using the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases between inception and August 20, 2020, for retrospective and prospective studies evaluating ARIF versus ORIF in the treatment of tibial plateau fracture. We identified 6 clinical studies that met the inclusion criteria, with 231 patients treated with ARIF and 386 patients treated with ORIF. The risk of bias and the quality of evidence of the included studies were assessed. The 2 treatment types were compared in terms of clinical results and complications by using odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs), or standardized mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity among studies was quantified using the I 2 statistic. Results: The quality of the studies was high. Compared with ORIF, treatment with ARIF led to better clinical function (SMD = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.48; I 2 = 15%; P = .0005), shorter hospital stay (MD = –2.37; 95% CI, –2.92 to –1.81; I 2 = 0%; P < .001), and more intra-articular lesions found intraoperatively (OR = 3.76; 95% CI, 1.49 to 9.49; I 2 = 66%; P = .005). There were no complications or significant differences between the techniques in the radiological evaluation of reduction. Conclusion: Compared with ORIF, the ARIF technique for tibial plateau fractures led to faster postoperative recovery and better clinical function and the ability to find and treat more intra-articular lesions during the operation. However, the radiological evaluation of reduction and complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups.