Fixation of patella fractures with metallic implants is associated with a significantly higher risk of complications and re-operations than non-metallic implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

The use of metallic implants for the treatment of patella fractures often involves complications related to the hardware. As a result, there has been a considerable focus on the use of non-metallic implants. The aim of this study was to determine the differences in clinical outcomes, including the rates of complications and re-operations following the surgical management of patellar fractures with metallic versus non-metallic implants. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Two investigators independently applied the search strategy to PubMed, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases, limited to publications between 1st January 2000 to 30st September 2021. The search strategy identified studies in which there was a comparison between the clinical outcome of the metallic and non-metallic fixation. Meta-analysis was conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration and Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analysis (QUORUM) guidelines. A total of 19 studies were selected for the systematic review and seven studies for the meta-analysis. Two hundred ninety-sixt patients formed the pooled study population for the meta-analysis. The outcomes evaluated in the meta-analysis were range of motion (ROM), complications, and re-operation rates. There was no significant difference between groups regarding ROM, but the risk ratio (RR) of re-operation (RR 0.19, 95% CI [0.09-0.41]) and complications (RR 0.30, 95% CI [0.17-0.55]) was significantly in favor of fixation with non-metallic implants. The use of non-metallic implants for fixation of patella fractures was associated with significantly lower risk of complications and re-operations than fixation with metallic implants, without any difference between groups with respect to the final range of motion or functional outcome measures.