Comparison of 3 Treatment Methods for Distal Tibial Fractures: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: The choice of optimal internal fixation device for distal tibial fractures remains controversial. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of open reduction and internal fixation, minimally invasive percutaneous osteosynthesis, and intramedullary nailing of distal tibial fractures in adults using network meta-analysis of data from clinical trials. MATERIAL/METHODS: The studies were abstracted from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CNKI, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected. Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata software, version 13.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA). RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials were included. The total number of participants was 710 and the studies were published between 2005 and 2017. There were no significant differences in rates of delayed union, nonunion, or malunion among the various treatments (all p>0.05). The intramedullary nailing group had a lower incidence of wound complications than did the open reduction and internal fixation group and minimally invasive percutaneous osteosynthesis technique group. The SUCRA probabilities were 28.6% for ORIF, 98.4% for IMN, and 22.9% for MIPPO. CONCLUSIONS: Given the superior results for intramedullary nailing in terms of wound complications, we recommend this procedure for treatment of distal tibial fractures. More RCTs focused on distal tibial fractures are needed to support the current evidence.