Bridging external fixation versus non-bridging external fixation for unstable distal radius fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

ObjectiveA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the relative effectiveness of bridging external fixation and non-bridging external fixation for distal radius fractures treatment. MethodRelevant literature were comprehensively searched using the PubMed, Springer Link, Karger Medical and Scientific Publishers, Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases without any language restrictions. STATA Version 12.0 software and Comprehensive Meta-analysis 2.0 were applied. ResultsA total of 905 patients with distal radius fracture from six eligible cohort studies were selected for statistical analysis. Our meta-analysis results indicate that the non-bridging cases had a higher risk of pin track infection, rupture of the extensor pollicis longus and nerve injury than the bridging cases. Subgroup analysis stratified by country indicated non-bridging patients showed evidence of an increased risk of pin track infection and higher risk of rupture of the extensor pollicis longus compared with the patients treated with bridging external fixation in the UK population. The follow-up results showed flexion degree of patients treated with non-bridging external fixation was slightly better than that of patients treated with bridging external fixation (P < 0.05). ConclusionThere is evidence in our systematic review and meta-analysis to support that bridging external fixation can reduce the incidence of pin tract infections and nerve injury compared to non-bridging external fixation, but have no significant difference in other complications and the recovery of wrist joint function. Bridging external fixation could therefore be a better choice in patients with distal radius fractures.