Intramedullary nail versus plate treatments for distal tibial fractures: A meta-analysis

• We identified 16 studies compared efficacy of intramedullary nail (IMN) and plate.
• There were 599 IMN treatments and 541 plate treatments.
• IMN achieved a significant lower incidence of superficial infection (SI) than plate.
• IMN showed a significant higher incidence of malunion than plate.

IntroductionControversy remained on whether the optimal treatment for distal tibial fractures is intramedullary nail (IMN) or plate.MethodsDatabases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Wanfang and CNKI were retrieved up to May 31, 2014 for eligible studies. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool was used to evaluate literature qualities. Q and I2 test were applied to estimate heterogeneities. Moreover, subgroup analyses were performed and publication bias was detected. Mean difference (MD) and relative risk (RR), with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to calculate the pooled results.ResultsSixteen studies were included involving 1140 participants (IMN: 599; plate: 541). There were no significant differences between IMN and plate treatments in operation time (OT), hospital time (HT), union time (UT), and incidence of deep infection (DI) and union complications (UC). However, IMN achieved a significant lower superficial infection (SI) incidence (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.71; P = 0.001) and a significant higher malunion incidence (RR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.56 to 3.31; P < 0.001). In subgroup analyses, IMN had significant shorter OT than plate in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (MD, -19.04; 95% CI, -24.86 to −13.21; P < 0.0001), but comparable incidence of SI to plate in non-Asia countries. No obvious publication bias was indicated in UT and malunion.ConclusionFor distal tibial fractures treatment, IMN might be advantageous over plate with lower SI incidence, and comparable UT, OT and HT. Meanwhile, IMN was related to higher risk of malunion. However, more RCTs are warranted.