Efficacy and safety of pararectus approach for the treatment of acetabular fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundThe pararectus (PR) approach combines the advantages of the second window of the ilioinguinal approach and the medial view of the modified Stoppa approach. However, it is unclear whether the PR approach is more effective or safer than the other approaches, as few clinical studies have compared the PR approach with the other approaches. The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the PR approach with the other approaches for the treatment of acetabular fractures and to answer the following question: Are the results of the PR approach superior to those of the other approaches in terms of reduction quality, operative time, operative blood loss, complications, and clinical outcomes for treatment of acetabular fractures? Patients and methodsA systematic literature review was conducted using relevant original studies from various databases. Pooling of data was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3, Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). A p-value<0.05 was considered to be significant. We calculated the mean differences for continuous data and odds ratio for dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals for each outcome. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed based on I2 using the standard χ2 test. ResultsFive studies were included in this meta-analysis. The findings demonstrated that operative blood loss was significantly lower in the PR approach than in the other approaches (p=0.04). There was no significant difference in the rate of anatomical reduction, the operative time, the rate of complications, and the rate of excellent or good clinical score between the PR approach and the other approaches. DiscussionThe PR approach provided lower operative blood loss, although there was no significant difference in reduction quality, operative time, complications, and excellent or good clinical score between the PR approach and the other approaches. Level of evidenceIII.