The efficacy of arthroscopy-assisted versus stand-alone open reduction and internal fixation for treating tibial plateau fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Autor: Tay ST; Department of Medical Education, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan., Chen MZ; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan., Chan YS; School of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Keelung, Taiwan., Kuo LT; School of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. light71829@gmail.com.; Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan. light71829@gmail.com.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: BMC musculoskeletal disorders [BMC Musculoskelet Disord] 2024 Oct 30; Vol. 25 (1), pp. 865. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Oct 30.
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07958-1
Abstrakt: Background: The optimal surgical technique for treating tibial plateau fractures remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of arthroscopy-assisted reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) to those of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in treating tibial plateau fractures.
Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare surgical outcomes between ARIF versus ORIF for patients with tibial plateau fractures. Relevant studies, comprising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, were identified through searches in Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase databases. Risk of bias assessments were conducted using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs (RoB 2.0), Newcastle Ottawa scales for non-RCTs, and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for case series studies. Data synthesis utilized a random-effects model meta-analysis. The primary outcome assessed was functional outcomes, with complications considered as secondary outcomes.
Results: There were fifteen studies (one RCT and fourteen non-RCTs) included in this study, comprising a total of 969 participants (548 in the ARIF group and 421 in the ORIF group). Although patients in the ARIF group showed a trend towards better functional outcomes compared to the ORIF group, the difference was not statistically significant (Hospital for special surgery score, mean difference (MD) = 5.13, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-1.67 to 11.92, I²=83%; Knee society score, MD = 5.84, 95% CI=-1.18 to 12.86, I²=74%). No significant differences were noted in infection, stiffness, DVT, and overall complications between two groups. The ARIF group included ten case series studies with a total of 302 patients. The pooled mean Rasmussen Radiological Score was 16.59 (95% CI, 15.72 to 17.50), and the pooled mean Rasmussen Clinical Score was 27.38 (95% CI, 26.45 to 28.33).
Conclusion: The findings of this study reveal no significant difference in clinical outcomes and complication rates between ARIF and ORIF. Additionally, this study found that the complication rate for patients undergoing ARIF falls within previously reported ranges. This suggests that ARIF is a reliable and effective surgical option for treating tibial plateau fractures, even in cases involving high-energy trauma.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje