A systemic review and meta-analysis of pararectus versus ilioinguinal approach for the management of acetabular fractures.

PURPOSE: The complex anatomy of acetabular fracture needs a surgical approach that can achieve anatomical reduction with fewer complications for the fixation of these fractures. Current literature suggests that both Pararectus (PR) approach and Ilioinguinal (IL) approach can be used for the fixation of these fractures safely. However, superiority of the PR approach over the IL approach is not established. Hence, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the PR versus IL approach. METHODOLOGY: A literature search was performed on five databases Medline/PubMed, Scopus Embase, Cinhal, and Cochrane Library, from the inception to January 14, 2023. A qualitative and quantitative analysis was done for the five eligible studies from the literature search. Individual study characteristics data and outcomes were extracted, and Software version 5.4.1 of Review Manager was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Five articles, one Randomized trial (RCT), and four retrospective articles were included and analyzed in this meta-analysis. PR approach has a shorter surgical time [mean difference (MD) -48.4 with 95% CI -74.49, -22.30; p = 0.0003], less intraoperative blood loss (MD -123.22 with 95% CI -212.28, -34.15; p = 0.007), and smaller surgical incision (MD -9.87 with 95% CI -15.21, -4.52; p = 0.0003) than the IL approach. However, the meta-analysis failed to show a difference between the two surgical approaches concerning the quality of reduction, overall complications, nerve injury, vascular injury, heterotopic ossification, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSION: The PR approach has a shorter surgical duration, less blood loss, and a smaller surgical incision than the IL approach. However, both surgical approaches have equivocal results regarding fracture reduction quality, complication rates, and functional outcomes for acetabular fracture fixation. Hence, for acetabular fractures fixation, PR approach can be considered a safe and feasible alternative to the IL approach.

Femoral neck fracture fixation in rhombic versus inverted triangle configuration in young adults: A systematic review.

Objective: This review evaluated the outcomes of rhombic versus inverted triangle configuration fixation of femoral neck fractures. Methods: Six databases, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), were comprehensibly searched for the comparative studies of two configurations (rhombic versus inverted triangle) of neck femur fracture fixation. Ultimately seven studies were included in this systematic review for qualitative and quantitative analysis. A meta-analysis was performed with the software RevMan 5.4.1. Results: Fewer nonunion (OR 0.46 with 95 % CI 0.23, 0.94; p = 0.03), and early full weight bearing (MD -3.09 with 95 % CI -5.41, -0.77; p = 0.009) were seen in the rhombic than in the inverted configuration; however, a better hip function (MD 3.72 with 95 % CI 0.99, 6.44; p = 0.008), and lesser less blood loss (MD 3.84 with 95 % CI 1.19, 6.49; p = 0.004) during surgery were found in the inverted triangle configuration. There was no difference between the two fixation configurations regarding the duration of surgery, fracture union time, overall complications, femoral neck shortening, length of hospital stay, fluoroscopy times, and incision size. Conclusion: The rhomboid configuration showed fewer non-union, early weight bearing, better hip function and comparable complications rate than the inverted triangle configuration; however, there was more blood loss intraoperatively than inverted triangle configuration. Hence, the addition of a fourth screw in the rhombic configuration have an added advantage over the inverted triangle configuration in femoral neck fracture.

Comparison of outcomes of retrograde intramedullary nailing versus locking plate fixation in distal femur fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 936 patients in 16 studies.

Background: The surgical treatment for distal femur fractures has evolved over time, and it depends upon certain factors; open or closed fracture type, the pattern of fracture, presence of metaphyseal comminution, intra-articular extension, and the bone quality are some of the crucial ones. Both retrograde intramedullary nails (RIMN) and locking plates (LP) can be used for the fixation of these fractures. However, the optimal method among the two devices is still a topic of debate, the superiority of one over the other being unclear. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conceptualized to compare the outcomes of RIMN with distal femur LP. Methods: The primary electronic search was conducted on Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Embase, Cinahl, and Cochrane Library databases for the published literature from the inception to 25th February 2022. The studies compared outcomes of RIMN versus LP fixation of the acute supracondylar or distal femur fracture (AO/OTA type-33A, B, and C) and reported at least one primary (mean fracture union time, complications, implant-related complications, and re-operation rate) or secondary outcome (duration of surgery, intra-operative blood loss, and knee range of motion), were included. Results: Six randomized control trials, 2 prospective and 8 retrospective studies with 936 patients with 8 bilateral cases (467: RIMN; 477: LP) were included. Our analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in terms of mean fracture union time, overall complications, implant-related complications, re-operation rates, and duration of surgeries. Although a better knee range of motion was seen in the LP group, however, it also showed more nonunion and infection than the RIMN group. Conclusion: The present review shows that there are significantly lesser nonunions and infections, in the RIMN group as compared to LP for distal femur fractures, although a better postoperative knee range of motion was seen in the latter. However, in terms of fracture union time, the overall rate of complications, re-operation rates, and duration of surgeries, there is no difference between the two surgical options.