ReviewMinimally invasive percutaneous plates versus conventional fixation techniques for distal tibial fractures: A meta-analysis

- MIPO had longer operating time, longer radiation time and higher incidence rate of soft tissue irritation symptoms.
- No significant difference existed between MIPO and CFT the in postoperative complications except for soft tissue irritation symptoms.
- Advantage of limited soft tissue dissection and minimal hardware application in MIPO was not found.

ObjectiveThis meta-analysis was performed to determine the effects of minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) versus conventional fixation techniques (CFT) for treating distal tibial fractures.MethodsA literature search was performed in EMBASE, Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The trials searched were evaluated for eligibility. The Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager software was used to perform meta-analyses.ResultsEight studies were enrolled, including five randomized controlled trials, one control-matched trial and two retrospective cohort trials. The meta-analysis revealed that MIPO has a longer operating time, longer radiation time and higher incidence rate of soft tissue irritation symptoms than those of CFT. There was no significant difference between the two techniques with regard to union time, the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), infection rate and various other complications.ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis showed that MIPO did not have obvious advantages over CFT in the treatment of distal tibia fracture. However, more rigorous randomized controlled trials are required in the future.