Crossed versus lateral K-wire fixation of supracondylar fractures of the humerus in children: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Supracondylar fractures of the humerus are common in children. Whether fixation should be performed with crossed or lateral wires remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate both techniques in terms of the function of the elbow and the risk of neurologic injury and loss of reduction. We also assessed the quality of the evidence currently available. The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) databases, as well as ongoing clinical trial databases, were searched until March 2020. The main outcomes were function, measured by the Flynn criteria, and complications (neurologic lesions and loss of reduction). A meta-analysis was conducted using relative risk (RR) analysis for dichotomous variables and difference in means for continuous variables. Heterogeneity was tested using the I2 statistic. Twelve trials, with a total of 930 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Both groups (crossed-wire and lateral-wire fixation) presented satisfactory functional results, with no difference between them (RR, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.02; P = .44). Patients undergoing crossed-wire fixation had a higher risk of iatrogenic neurologic injury (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.99; P = .05). The crossed group showed greater fixation stability, with a lower incidence of loss of fracture reduction (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.04-1.85; P = .03). The GRADEpro GDT (Guideline Development Tool) showed that the quality of evidence of the evaluated outcomes was low or very low. There is evidence of very low quality that fixation with lateral wires is safer regarding iatrogenic nerve lesions whereas fixation with crossed wires is more effective at maintaining fracture reduction.