Lag screw versus locking plate fixation for traumatic displaced medial malleolar fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundLag screw fixation (LSF) or locking plate fixation (LPF) are both recommended for the treatment of medial malleolar fractures (MMFs). However, no standard has been established for attaining optimal surgical treatment or functional recovery. We hypothesized that LPF for MMFs would result in superior outcomes compared to LSF. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical outcomes of LSF and LPF in the treatment of MMF. Patients and methodsWe searched for studies published prior to November 2023 across the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Standardization of individual effect sizes was conducted; subsequently, pooled effect sizes were derived by employing random-effects models. ResultsFive retrospective studies involving 394 patients were reviewed. American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores were significantly higher among patients who received LPF (mean difference [MD]: 2.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37–4.04; p = 0.02) than among those who received LSF. Pain scores were significantly lower among patients who received LPF (MD: −0.35; 95% CI: −0.64 to −0.05; p = 0.02) than among those who received LSF. No significant differences in delayed union was observed between the groups (Relative risk [RR]: 1.43; 95% CI, 0.37–4.04; p = 0.42). Fixation failure was slightly higher in patients who received LSF than in those who received LPF (RR: 3.11; 95% CI, 0.88–11.01; p = 0.08). DiscussionCompared with LSF, LPF yields superior functional outcomes, superior patient comfort, and comparative complication rates. LPF is also better able to prevent rotation and apply compressive forces across fracture sites, which can facilitate the management of different types of MMF. Additional randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are warranted. Level of evidenceIII.