Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Dec;47(12):3077-3097.
doi: 10.1007/s00264-023-05879-7. Epub 2023 Jul 26.

External fixation versus intramedullary nailing for the management of open tibial fracture: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

External fixation versus intramedullary nailing for the management of open tibial fracture: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Jawaher F Alsharef et al. Int Orthop. 2023 Dec.

Abstract

Aim: Tibial shaft fractures are the most common type of long-bone fractures. External fixation (EF) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) are widely used surgical techniques for the definitive fixation of open tibial shaft fractures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare EF to IMN for the definitive fixation of open tibial fractures.

Methods: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for eligible studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared EF to IMN for skeletally mature adults with open tibial fracture (Gustilo I, II, and III). We evaluated the following outcomes: superficial infection, pin-track infection, deep infection, malunion, nonunion, delayed union, and implant/hardware failure. The risk ratio (RR) was used to represent the desired outcomes. The statistical analysis was performed using the random-effects model.

Results: A total of 12 RCTs that enrolled 1090 participants were deemed eligible for the analysis. EF showed a significantly higher rate of superficial infection, pin track infection, and malunion compared to IMN (RR = 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34 to 3.95; RR = 13.52, 95% CI: 6.16 to 29.66; RR = 2.29, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.73, respectively). No substantial difference was found between EF and IMN in terms of deep infection, nonunion, delayed union, or implant/hardware failure (RR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.98; RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; RR = 1.50, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.33; RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.60, respectively).

Discussion: The findings of our meta-analysis are consistent with the previous systematic reviews excepts for the implant/hardware failure which was found to be significant in favour of IMN by one of the previous reviews.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis confirms that IMN is better than EF with respect to clinical outcomes and complication rate for the definitive fixation of open tibial fracture.

Keywords: External fixation; Internal fixation; Intramedullary nail; Tibial fracture.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Court-Brown CM, Bugler KE, Clement ND, Duckworth AD, McQueen MM (2012) The epidemiology of open fractures in adults. A 15-year review. Injury 43(6):891–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.12.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Court-Brown CM, Rimmer S, Prakash U, McQueen MM (1998) The epidemiology of open long bone fractures. Injury 29(7):529–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(98)00125-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Papakostidis C, Kanakaris NK, Pretel J, Faour O, Morell DJ, Giannoudis PV (2011) Prevalence of complications of open tibial shaft fractures stratified as per the Gustilo-Anderson classification. Injury 42(12):1408–1415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.10.015 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lua JYC, Tan VH, Sivasubramanian H, Kwek EBK (2017) Complications of open tibial fracture management: risk factors and treatment. Malaysian Orthopaedic J 11(1):18. https://doi.org/10.5704/2FMOJ.1703.006 - DOI
    1. Small JO, Mollan RA (1992) Management of the soft tissues in open tibial fractures. Br J Plast Surg 45(8):571–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1226(92)90022-P - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources