Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis Group Research Articles

Wound infection and healing in minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis compared with intramedullary nail for distal tibial fractures: A meta-analysis.

To systematically explore the effects of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) versus intramedullary nail (IMN) on wound infection and wound healing in patients with distal tibia fractures. A computerised search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Wanfang, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases was performed, from their inception to October 2023, to identify relevant studies on the application of MIPO and IMN in patients with distal tibial fractures. The quality of the included literature was evaluated by two researchers based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and basic information of the literature was collected, with wound infection, postoperative complications and wound healing time as the main indicators for analysis. Stata 17.0 software was applied for analysis. Overall, 23 papers and 2099 patients were included, including 1026 patients in the MIPO group and 1073 patients in the IMN group. The results revealed, when compared with IMN treatment, patients with distal tibia fractures who underwent MIPO treatment had a lower incidence of postoperative complications (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.25-0.42, p < 0.001) and a shorter wound healing time (SMD = -1.00, 95% CI: -1.51 to -0.49, p < 0.001), but the incidence of postoperative wound infection was higher (OR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.35-3.01, p = 0.001). Both MIPO and IMN are excellent treatments for distal tibia fractures. MIPO is effective in reducing the incidence of complications as well as shortening the time of wound healing time but increases the risk of wound infection. In clinical practice, surgeons can make individual choices based on the patient's wishes and proficiency in both techniques.

Retrograde tibial intramedullary nail versus minimally invasive locking plate for extra-articular distal tibial fractures: A comparative and retrospective study

BackgroundThe fractures of distal tibia represent common lower limb injuries, frequently accompanied by significant soft tissue damage. The optimal surgical approach for these fractures remains a considerable debate. This study was to perform a comparative analysis of retrograde intramedullary tibial nails (RTN) and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) for extra-articular distal tibial fractures. Patients and methodsBetween December 2019 and December 2021, a retrospective review was conducted on 48 patients who sustained extra-articular distal tibial fractures. Patients underwent either RTN or MIPO procedures. Operative duration, intraoperative fluoroscopy exposure, time to union, duration until full weight-bearing, American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, and related complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. ResultsNo statistically differences were observed in operative duration, time to union, angulation of the distal tibial coronal plane, or AOFAS scores between RTN and MIPO groups. However, the RTN group had a higher average number of intraoperative fluoroscopy images (8.2 ± 2.3) compared to the MIPO group (4.1 ± 2.0). The RTN group demonstrated shorter average hospital stays (7.1 ± 1.4 days) and a quicker return to full weight-bearing (9.9 ± 1.3 weeks), which were significantly superior to the MIPO group (9.0 ± 2.0 days and 11.5 ± 1.5 weeks, respectively). In terms of complications, the RTN group had one case of superficial infection, whereas the MIPO group exhibited two cases of delayed union and nonunion, one instance of implant failure, two occurrences of deep infection, and an additional three cases of superficial infection. The complications rate was remarkably higher in the MIPO group. ConclusionBoth RTN and MIPO are effective treatment options for extra-articular distal tibial fractures. However, RTN may offer superior outcomes in terms of reduced hospital stay duration, faster return to full weight-bearing capacity, and a lower rate of complications.

Biomechanical comparison of three different surgical methods in the surgical treatment of distal tibial metaphyseal fractures. An animal model study.

The aim of this study is to investigate mechanical properties of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO), supracutaneousplating (SP), and unilateral external fixators (UEF) which can be performed for open tibial fractures. An unstable diaphysial tibia fracture was created in 60 fresh sheep tibia specimens by performing an osteotomy at the middle of bones. Specimens were divided into 3 groups. Specimens underwent fracture fixation with a standard MIPO technique, im-planting the plate 15 mm from the bone for SP group. Unilateral uniplanar external fixators were achieved for UEF group. First, thirty specimens (10 specimen for each group) were loaded vertically along the tibial axis to 1800 N. Second, other 30 preperated bones were used for cyclical loading to avoid metal fatigue. For dynamic tests, a 350 N force was applied for 10,000 cycles. In compression testing (vertical loading up to 1800 N) of the three fixation instruments; construct stiffness was highest in MIPO group when compared with SP and UEF groups. While the stiffness of the MIPO group was similar to SP group, it was statistically higher than UEF group (P=0.08 and P=0.002, respectively). SP group was significantly stiffer than UEF group (P=0.0021). The mean peak load was highest in SP group and lowest in UEF group. The peak load in SP group was similar to the MIPO group, it was statistically higher than the UEF group (P=0.743 and P=0.002, respectively). Based on the biomechanical properties from this in vitro animal model study, SP technique was biomechanically stronger than UEF and has similar biomechanical properties with MIPO in terms of axial loading.

Proximal humerus fractures: deltopectoral open reduction and internal fixation vs deltosplit minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: which surgical approach provides superior results?

To compare the two main surgical approaches to address proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) stratified for Neer fracture types, to demonstrate which approach gives the best result for each fracture type. A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to 4 January 2022. Inclusion criteria were studies comparing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with deltopectoral (DP) approach and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) with deltosplit (DS) approach of PHFs. Patient's demographic data, fracture type, Constant-Murley Score (CMS), operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, fluoroscopy time, and radiological outcomes were extracted. Results were stratified for each type of Neer fracture. Eleven studies (798 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. No functional difference was found in the CMS between the two groups for each type of Neer (P = n.s.): for PHFs Neer II, the mean CMS was 72.5 (s.e. 5.9) points in the ORIF group and 79.6 (s.e. 2.5) points in the MIPO group; for Neer III, 77.8 (s.e. 2.0) in the ORIF and 76.4 (se 3.0) in the MIPO; and for Neer IV, 70.6 (s.e. 2.7) in the ORIF and 60.9 (s.e. 6.3) in the MIPO. The operation time in the MIPO group was significantly lower than in the ORIF group for both Neer II (P = 0.0461) and Neer III (P = 0.0037) fractures. The MIPO with DS approach demonstrated no significant differences in the results to the ORIF with DP approach for the different Neer fractures in terms of functional results, with a similar outcome, especially for the Neer II and III fracture types. The MIPO technique proved to be as safe and effective as the ORIF approach.

Clinical outcome of internal fixation of middle third clavicle fractures using locking compression plate: comparison between conventional open plating and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis

Objective: To compare the outcomes of conventional open plating and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) for treatment of displaced middle third clavicle fractures. Methods: A retrospective cohort study. From January 2016 to December 2020, a total of 42 patients with middle third clavicle fractures treated with locking compression plates in the Department of Orthopedics, Nanping First Hospital Affiliated to Fujian Medical University were analyzed retrospectively, including 27 males and 15 females with a mean age of (36.5±8.7) years (19-61 years). According to the different treatment methods, the patients were divided into 2 groups: the traditional incision group (n=20) were treated with conventional open plating and the MIPO group (n=22) were treated with the MIPO technique. The supraclavicular nerve was preserved in those patients. The two groups were compared in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, fracture healing time, and the ratio and length difference with the uninjured clavicle. The shoulder joint function was evaluated with Constant score and Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (DASH) at the last follow-up. The incidence of numbness around the incision was evaluated at 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 1 year after operation, and the complications of the two groups were compared. Results: The patients were followed-up for an average of 16.5 months (ranged from 13 to 35 months). The operating time [(68.4±12.7) min vs (55.3±10.2) min], intraoperative blood loss[(72.5±16.9) ml vs (52.8±13.5) ml], as well as incision length [(8.7±2.3) cm vs (4.5±1.2) cm] were all significantly greater in traditional incision group than those in MIPO group (all P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the time of fracture healing, the length of contrast with the contralateral clavicle, and the constant score and DASH score of shoulder joint function at the last follow-up (all P>0.05). The incidence of numbness around the incision after operation at 6 weeks [60.0%(12/20) vs 27.3%(6/22)] and 12 weeks [45.0%(9/20) vs 13.6%(3/22)] were obviously higher in traditional incision group than those in MIPO group (both P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups at 1 year after operation [15.0%(3/20) vs 4.5%(1/22), P=0.531]. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications incidence between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusions: It is showed that both conventional open plating and MIPO are effective and safe treatment methods for displaced middle third clavicle fractures with locking compression plates. MIPO can reduce operating time, intraoperative blood loss and the incidence of early postoperative numbness around the incision.

Comparative study of patients with midshaft clavicle fracture fixed with a locked plate via an open versus percutaneous approach

ObjectiveTo compare the results of surgical treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures, treated with the technique of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) with locking compression plate versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with locked plate. MethodsQuasi-randomized comparative study, evaluating displaced midshaft clavicle fractures treated with MIPO versus ORIF, with procedures performed by a single surgeon. We evaluated patients at 12 months using the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) scale and radiographically at 8, 12, 26 and 52 weeks, in addition to describing complications. ResultsWe evaluated 44 patients; 22 submitted to MIPO and 22 to ORIF. The median UCLA scores at 12 months were 35 in the ORIF group and 35 in the MIPO group (p = 0.712). All patients had fracture healing at 3 months (p > 0.999). The mean surgery time was 87.5 min in the ORIF group and 47.5 in the MIPO (p < 0.001) group. As complications, 1 suture dehiscence (4.5%), 2 protruding plates (9.1%) and 1 change in sensitivity around the surgical wound (4.5%) were observed in the MIPO group, while in the ORIF group, 15 changes in sensitivity (68.2%) and 3 hypertrophic scars (13.6%) were observed. The only complication that showed a difference between the groups was the change in sensitivity (p < 0.001). No cases of pseudarthrosis or failure of osteosynthesis were identified in either technique. ConclusionThis study demonstrated that the two treatments, ORIF and MIPO, are equally effective in the treatment of displaced middle third clavicle fractures. However, MIPO is superior to ORIF in regard to reduced surgical time and preservation of supraclavicular nerve sensitivity.

Intramedullary nail versus minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for displaced extraarticular proximal tibia fractures: a prospective comparative cohort study.

The treatment of extraarticular proximal tibial fractures is challenging. As the optimal fixation technique is still debated, the purpose of this study was to compare minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and intramedullary nail (IMN) fixation. A prospective matched comparative studywas conducted on patients with displaced extraarticular proximal tibia fractures treated with MIPO (n = 29) versus IMN (n = 30) fixation. Outcomes collected were the Johner-Wruhs grading, range of motion (ROM), union rate, time to union, malunion, coronal and sagittal alignment, and post-operative complications. Union rates were similar between the MIPO and IMN groups (93% vs. 97%, P = 1.0). The IMN group had an earlier time to union (15 vs. 18weeks, P < 0.001) and superior functional outcomes at one year (effective Johner-Wruhs score: 80% vs. 55%, P = 0.04). There was a significantly higher incidence of anterior knee pain in the IMN group (23% vs. 0%, P = 0.02) and there was a trend for more infections in the MIPO group (21% vs. 13%, P = 0.73). IMN fixation of extraarticular proximal tibia fractures was associated with a shorter union time and better functional scores compared to MIPO.

Comparison of Intramedullary Interlocking Nailing (IMLNG) and Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis (MIPO) in Treating Extra Articular Distal Tibial Fractures

Background: Due to limited blood flow and sparse soft tissue coverage, treating distal tibia fractures presents a considerable challenge for orthopaedic surgeons. Objective: Our study's objectives were to compare the outcomes of the two treatment modalities of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) for extraarticular distal tibia fractures. Study Design: Randomized Controlled Trial Place and Duration of the Study: This study was conducted at Department of Orthopedic and Spine Surgery Sughra Shafi Medical Complex, Narowal from March 2021 to March 2022. Material Methods: During A total of 59 patients ( 30 in IMLN group and 29 in MIPO group), both male and female, with AO Type A, b and C distal tibial fractures lasting less than three days and ages ranging from 20 to 60, were enrolled for this research. At the most recent follow-up, clinical and radiological data were assessed. Results: The average duration to union was 21.9 weeks in the IMN group and 19.9 weeks in the MIPO group, and all of the examined patients eventually recovered. In the IMN group, the time to union was substantially greater (p= 0.001). Conclusion: Low operating, union, and hospitalisation times make MIPO advantageous. In order to lessen the morbidity of these patients, we advise using the minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) procedure as the first line of treatment for distal tibia fractures.. Keywords: Distal tibia fracture, minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis, intramedullary nailing,

Minimally-Invasive Plate or Intramedullar Nail in the Management of Distal Extra-Articular Tibial Fracture, What Is Better?

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of patients with distal tibia extraarticular fractures treated with Intramedullary nailing (IMN) or Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 47 patients treated with IMN and 41 patients with MIPO. Clinical and radiographic results were evaluated at last follow-up. Anterior knee pain, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Scale score and Lysholm knee scoring scale were used as clinical measurement. Results: Although the union time and operation time were significantly higher in the IMN group compared to the MIPO group (p&amp;lt;0.001), the full weight bearing time and the hospital time were higher in the MIPO group (p&amp;lt;0.001). There were no statistical differences between wound problem, malposition, infection and grafting rates in both groups (p&amp;gt;0.05). Although the AOFAS score was statistically higher in the IMN group (p=0.031), the Lysholm knee score was higher in the MIPO group (p&amp;lt;0.001). Conclusion: While MIPO is advantageous with low union time, low operating time and no damage to the knee joint, IMN allows earlier full weight bearing, lower hospitalization and has better ankle functional results. Keywords:

Treatment of humeral shaft fractures: a new minimally-invasive plate osteosynthesis versus open reduction and internal fixation: a case control study

BackgroundTo evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new minimally-invasive surgical approach–anteromedial minimally-invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO)–in the treatment of middle and distal humeral shaft fractures.MethodsFourteen patients with humeral shaft fracture treated with anteromedial MIPO from November 2016 to March 2020 (MIPO Group) were selected as the study subjects. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) were used to treat 14 patients with humeral shaft fractures as the control group (ORIF group). The two groups were fixed with a locking compression plate (LCP) or LCP + multi-directional locking screw system (MDLS). The incision length, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, operation time, length of hospital stay, fracture healing time, QuickDASH score and Constant score were observed and compared between the two groups.ResultsFourteen patients were enrolled in each group. The incision length (7.79 ± 2.39 cm), intraoperative blood loss (96.07 ± 14.96 mL), operative time (110.57 ± 21.90 min), hospital stay (6.29 ± 1.49 days) and fracture healing time (14.94 ± 0.99 weeks) in the MIPO group were all lower than those in the ORIF group, and the difference was statistically significant for each parameter (P < 0.05). The intraoperative fluoroscopy time (20.07 ± 3.22) in the MIPO group was significantly higher than that in the ORIF group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in age (P = 0.078), QuickDASH score (P = 0.074) or Constant score (P = 0.293) between the two groups and no postoperative complications occurred in any of the patients.ConclusionThe anteromedial approach MIPO technique has the advantages of less trauma, less bleeding, low risk of nerve injury and high rate of fracture healing. It is one of the most effective methods for the treatment of middle and middle–distal humeral shaft fractures.

Minimally Invasive Pronator Quadratus Sparing Approach versus Extended Flexor Carpi Radialis Approach with Pronator Quadratus Repair for Volar Plating in Distal Radial Fractures.

Background Several volar plating techniques exist to treat distal radial fractures. Question We investigated minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) with pronator quadratus (PQ) sparing versus conventional flexor carpi radialis approach for volar plating with PQ repair after distal radial fractures during the first postoperative year. Patients and Methods Prospective data of two consecutive cohorts were compared: 62 patients in MIPO group with an average age of 61.2 years and 66 patients in PQ repair group with an average age of 61.4 years completed the entire follow-up period. Results Range of motion was not significantly different, except flexion-extension that was significantly higher in the MIPO group. Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand was significantly lower in the MIPO group. Pain visual analogue scale was only significantly lower at 6 weeks. Grip strength measurements and patient satisfaction were not significantly different. Conclusions MIPO volar plating with PQ sparing is a surgical technique that can be chosen according to surgeon's preference and expertise, resulting in a better flexion-extension mobility and function score according to our study. Level of evidence This is a Level 3 study.

Is Minimally Invasive Plating Osteosynthesis Better Than Conventional Open Plating for Humeral Shaft Fractures? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.

The aim of systematic review and meta-analysis was to find out whether minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) is better than open reduction and internal plate fixation (ORIF) in terms of functional outcome, achieving union (union time and incidence of non-union), intraoperative parameters (surgical duration, blood loss, and radiation exposure), and complications (iatrogenic radial nerve palsy and infection) for humeral shaft fractures. We searched online databases (Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library) from inception till 3rd September 2020 for articles comparing MIPO with ORIF for humeral shaft fractures. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was done by Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool 2 (RoB2) and of non-randomized studies (case-control and cohort studies) by Methodological Index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software. 11 studies (5 RCTs and 6 non-randomized comparative studies) involving a total of 582 patients (MIPO-290, ORIF-292) meeting our inclusion criteria were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference in pooled analysis of functional outcome scores between MIPO and ORIF. Union time was significantly lesser (mean difference = 3.12 weeks) and incidence of non-union lower (odd's ratio = 0.27) in MIPO group. Surgical duration and intraoperative blood loss were significantly lesser in MIPO group. Iatrogenic radial nerve palsy and infection were higher in ORIF group. This study showed that MIPO gives similar functional outcomes as compared to ORIF but causes significantly lesser blood loss, requires lesser operative duration and has a lesser incidence of major complications. International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO)-CRD42020208346, Date of registration 09/10/2020. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-021-00413-6.

Comparison between intramedullary nailing and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for tibial shaft fractures

Intramedullary nailing (IMN) is currently considered the gold standard in the surgical treatment of tibial shaft fractures in adult patients. In this case-control comparative study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and IMN in treating tibial shaft fractures. The clinical and radiological outcomes, such as a modified trauma scale, operation time, fracture healing, rate of re-operation, and complications such as malunion, nonunion, shortening, and infection were assessed between IMN and MIPO for the treatment of tibial shaft fractures. Seventy-three skeletally mature patients who underwent IMN (group I) or MIPO (group M) for a closed extra-articular tibial shaft fracture (AO/OTA type 42) from June 2010 to May 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The mean age was 51.16 (18~79) years, and the mean follow-up period was 22 (12~50) months. Bony union was achieved in all cases but one for each group - group I (35 cases) and group M (36 cases) (p>0.05). Mean callus formation was observed in 12 (8 - 16) weeks in both groups (p>0.05). There was no significant difference in operative time, hospital stay, bone healing, and the rate of complications among the two groups (p>0.05). There was also no postoperative difference in functional evaluation between the two methods (p>0.05). No discrepancy was found in radiological and clinical outcomes between IMN and MIPO for tibial shaft fractures. It can be concluded that both IMN and MIPO are equally effective treatment modalities for tibial shaft fractures.

Comparative Study between Intra-medullary Nailing and Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis (MIPO) in Closed Distal Tibia Fracture in a District Hospital in Bangladesh

Introduction: Tibia fractures are the most common long bone fractures encountered by the orthopedic surgeons and distal tibia fractures have the second highest incidence of all tibia fractures after the middle third of tibia the distal tibial fractures are unique and are considered as most challenging fractures to treat due to its proximity to the ankle joint and its superficial nature. The objective of this study is to compare two osteosynthesis systems developed for surgical treatment of distal tibia fractures: the intramedullary nailing and the MIPO technique.&#x0D; Methods: The study was conducted between Jan 2018 to Dec 2019. 30 patients with extraarticular distal tibia fracture treated with intramedullary nailing and MIPO technique were reviewed retrospectively and clinical outcome was evaluated according to American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score.&#x0D; Results: 15 patients were treated with intramedullary nail and 15 with MIPO technique. Fibular fixation was done in cases where fibular fracture was at or below the level of tibial fractures. We found no difference in terms of time for fracture union, mal-union, non-union, duration of surgery and amount of blood loss. But there was significant difference in terms of infection and duration of hospital stay. Also weight bearing was possible much earlier in intramedullary group as compared to the MIPO group.&#x0D; Conclusion: Thus we conclude that intramedullary nailing is better choice of implant in patients with extra- articular distal tibia fractures and helps in early weight bearing and ambulation of patient with fewer complications.&#x0D; J Shaheed Suhrawardy Med Coll, December 2020, Vol.12(1); 33-37

Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis versus Intramedullary Nailing for Fixation of Humeral Shaft Fractures in Adults

Introduction: The two methods of treatment of humeral shaft fractures, namely minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO), and antegrade intramedullary nailing (IMN) are reported as satisfactory procedures. Objective: To compare the clinical and radiological results of MIPO and IMN techniques in surgical treatment of mid humeral shaft fractures. Patients and methods: From March 2017 to July 2018, a prospective study on 60 patients with closed unilateral mid- humeral shaft fractures were surgically treated with MIPO or IMN. The intraoperative outcomes including operation time, bleeding volume, and the postoperative outcomes (clinically and radiologically) were recorded. The Constant-Murley scores were used for assessment of function of shoulder joint and Mayo score was used for measurement of elbow joint function. Complications in both groups have been reported. The follow-up duration ranged from 6 to 12 months with a mean duration of 6.7 months. Results: For group 1 having MIPO technique, the average operative time was 90.3 min (range 50–110), while mean blood loss was 167 ml (range 120–200). In group II patients (interlocking humeral nail), the average time of operation was 100.1 min (range 65–120), and mean blood loss was 118 ml (range 90–150). The mean Constant-Murley shoulder score was 86.95±15.7 in MIPO group and 88.75±13.7in IMN group. The mean Mayo Elbow Performance score in MIPO and IMN groups was 96.5 ± 5.87 and 95.8 ± 6.77, respectively. Radiologic bony union was achieved in 29 out of 30 patients in MIPO group and in 28 out of 30 in IMN group. All the wounds in both groups healed primarily. There was no iatrogenic radial nerve palsies in both groups. Shoulder impingement was found in 2 patients in IMN group. There was no statistically significant difference between two groups in all indexes mentioned above. Conclusion: Both the two methods were effective; however, MIPO method might be better for recovery of shoulder function and might reduce the nonunion rate.

Comparison between osteosynthesis with interlocking nail and minimally invasive plating for proximal- and middle-thirds of humeral shaft fractures.

Options for the treatment of proximal- and middle-thirds ofhumeral shaft fracturesinclude intramedullary interlocking nail (IMN) and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO). However, whether IMN provides better clinical outcomes than MIPO surgical technique still remains unclear. This study was designed to compare clinical outcomes of the IMN with MIPO technique for the treatment of proximal- and middle-thirds of humeral shaft fractures. A retrospective cohort analysis of 55 proximal- and middle-thirds of humeral shaft fracturessurgically treated using IMN (n = 25) or MIPO (n = 30) from January 2012 to January 2016. Peri-operative and follow-up data (a minimum of 1 year) of the patients (aged from 18 to 56 years) were collected. Operative time, union time, VAS scores, surgery-related complications, and implant removal rate were compared between the two groups in this study. Besides, the functional outcomes were evaluated using the Rating Scale of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons' Form (ASES) and Mayo Elbow Performance Score System (MEPS). We found significantly shorter operative time and much less blood loss in IMN group, and lower VAS scores in the IMN group after surgery at first and third months but not at the sixth month. Complication rate was found to be relatively higher in the MIPO group when compared to the IMN group. No significant difference was observed between these two groups regarding ASES and MEPS scores. Three patients in the MIPO group suffered iatrogenic radial nerve injury and recovered after four to five months later. No implant failures occurred in either group. Intramedullary interlocking nail seemed to be superior to minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis in the treatment of proximal- and middle-thirds of humeral shaft fractures due to shorter operative time and union time, less early post-operative pain, and fewer complications. The intramedullary interlocking nail could be considered a better surgical option for the management of proximal middle humeral fractures, though it may also depend on the surgeons' skills and learning curve. Further in-depth prospective studies are in great need to verify our conclusion.

Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) versus open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of distal fibula Danis-Weber types B and C fractures

BackgroundMinimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) has been reported to be superior to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of different long bone fractures. Nevertheless, in distal fibula fractures, the evidence of MIPO remains scarce. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of the minimally invasive techniques applied to the distal fibula with open reduction and internal fixation within a 12 months follow-up.MethodsA consecutive series of patients who underwent surgery using either ORIF or MIPO for the treatment of distal fibula fractures between 2010 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. All distal fibular fractures requiring an operative treatment (Danis-Weber type B ≙ AO type 44 B1, 2, 3 and Danis-Weber type C ≙ AO type 44 C1, 2) were included (ORIF n = 35, MIPO n = 35). Patients were assessed for postoperative pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain (ranging from 0 to 10) and classified into 4 groups: “no pain” for VAS = 0, “low” for VAS = 1–3, “moderate” for VAS = 3–5, and “severe” for VAS = 5–10. In addition, complications of postoperative fracture-related infection, wound healing disorders, vascular and nerve injury and development of nonunion were evaluated and analyzed. Radiologic outcome measures assessing the talocrural angle, lateral and medial clear space, tibiofibular overlap, and talar tilt angle were evaluated postoperatively.ResultsThe overall complication rate showed to be lower in the MIPO group compared to the ORIF group (14% vs. 37%, p = 0.029). Even though not statistically significant, specific surgery-related complications such as skin necrosis (3% vs. 9%, p = 0.275), nonunion (0% vs. 6%, p = 0.139), infections and wound healing disorders (9% vs. 20%, p = 0.141), as well as postoperative pain (17% vs. 26%, p = 0.5) were found more frequently in the ORIF group. The tibiofibular overlap demonstrated to be significantly lower in the ORIF group (3.3 mm vs. 2.7 mm, p = 0.033). The talocrural angle, talar tilt angle, and lateral and medial clear space showed to be equivalent in both groups.ConclusionIn this retrospective single-center consecutive series, MIPO was superior to ORIF in the surgical treatment of distal fibula fractures with respect to the overall complication rate.Trial registrationEKNZ Project-ID: 2019-02310, registered on the 20th of December 2019 with swissethics

Intramedullary Nailing Versus Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis for Distal Tibial Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

To evaluate the application, safety and efficacy of the patients treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN) and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) in distal tibia fractures. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched databases PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE and Web of Science from inception of the database up to 10 October 2018, using the keywords “distal tibia fractures”, “plate”, “intramedullary nailing” and “RCT” to identify randomized clinical trials about distal tibia fractures. The included studies were assessed by two researchers according to the Cochrane risk‐of‐bias criteria. The primary outcome of measurement included operation time, malunion rate, nonunion/delayed union rate, and wound complication. Data analysis was conducted with Review Manager 5.3 software. A total of 10 RCTs involving 911 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria with 455 patients in the IMN group and 456 patients in the MIPO group. There were no significant differences in radiation time, nonunion or delayed union rate, union time and operation time between the two groups. Patients treated with MIPO had lower incidence of malunion compared with IMN (RR = 1.85, 95%CI: 1.21 to 2.83, P = 1.00), while IMN seemed to have lower surgical incision complications whether in closed or opening fractures (RR = 0.49, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.73, P = 0.43). But in patients classified as 43A, the result of subgroup analysis suggested that there was no significant inwound complication between the two groups. MIPO was superior in preventing malunion compared with IMN, and intramedullary nailing appeared to have lower wound complications. However, in patients with 43A distal tibial fractures, MIPO was more recommended for its prevention of malunion. No matter which method we choose, we should notice and prevent the associated complications.

Comparison between minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open reduction-internal fixation for proximal humeral fractures: a meta-analysis based on 1050 individuals

BackgroundThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and complications of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and open reduction–internal fixation (ORIF) in patients with proximal humeral fractures.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library to identify all relevant studies from inception to April 2019. Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manage 5.3 was used for meta-analysis.ResultsSixteen studies involving 1050 patients (464 patients in the MIPO group and 586 patients in the ORIF group) were finally included. According to the meta-analysis, MIPO was superior to ORIF in operation time, blood loss, postoperative pain, fracture union time, and constant score. However, MIPO was associated with more exposure to radiation and axillary nerve injury. No significant differences were found in length of hospital stays and complication except for axillary nerve injury.ConclusionThe present evidence indicates that compared to ORIF, MIPO had advantages in functional outcomes, operation time, blood loss, postoperative pain, and fracture union time for the treatment of PHFs. However, the MIPO technique had a higher rate of axillary nerve injury and longer radiation time compared to ORIF.

Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis versus open reduction and internal fixation for humeral shaft fractures: a Meta-analysis

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety between minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of humeral shaft fracture. Methods Case-control studies and randomized clinical trials comparing MIPO with ORIF in the treatment of humeral shaft fracture from January 2010 to June 2018 were retrieved from PubMed Library, Cochrane Library, Embase Library, China National Knowledge Internet and Wanfang Data. Methodological quality of the studies and trials was critically assessed. REVMAN5.3 was used for data analysis. The 2 groups of patients were compared in terms of University of California, Los Angeles shoulder rating scale (UCLA), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), union time, nonunion rate and complications. Results A total of 452 patients from 9 articles were included. There were 216 cases in the MIPO group and 236 ones in the ORIF group. The Meta analyses showed that the MIPO group had a significantly higher UCLA score (WMD=0.36, P=0.03), significantly lower incidences of complications (OR=-0.15, P<0.05) and iatrogenic radial nerve palsy (OR=0.24, P<0.05), and significantly shorter union time (SMD=-0.36, P=0.02) than the ORIF group. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in MEPS (WMD=-0.48, P=0.43) or nonunion rate (OR=0.45, P=0.11). Conclusion MIPO may be a better choice for humeral shaft fracture than ORIF in regards to postoperative shoulder functions, union time, and incidences of complications and iatrogenic radial nerve palsy. Key words: Surgery, minimally invasive; Fracture fixation, internal; Bone plates; Meta-analysis; Humeral shaft fracture