• Shao-Bo Zhang, Yi-Bao Zhang, Sheng-Hong Wang, Hua Zhang, Peng Liu, Wei Zhang, Jing-Lin Ma, and Jing Wang.
• Department of Orthopedics, Key Laboratory of Orthopedics, Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730030, China.
• Chin. J. Traumatol. 2017 Apr 1; 20 (2): 94-98.

PurposeTo compare the clinical efficacy and complications of limited internal fixation combined with external fixation (LIFEF) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the treatment of Pilon fracture.MethodsWe searched databases including Pubmed, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane Library and China Biology Medicine disc for the studies comparing clinical efficacy and complications of LIFEF and ORIF in the treatment of Pilon fracture. The clinical efficacy was evaluated by the rate of nonunion, malunion/delayed union and the excellent/good rate assessed by Mazur ankle score. The complications including infections and arthritis symptoms after surgery were also investigated.ResultsNine trials including 498 pilon fractures of 494 patients were identified. The meta-analysis found no significant differences in nonunion rate (RR = 1.60, 95% CI: 0.66 to 3.86, p = 0.30), and the excellent/good rate (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.04, p = 0.28) between LIFEF group and ORIF group. For assessment of infections, there were significant differences in the rate of deep infection (RR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.34 to 3.55, p = 0.002), and the rate of arthritis (RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.53, p = 0.02) between LIFEF group and ORIF group.ConclusionLIFEF has similar effect as ORIF in the treatment of pilon fractures, however, LIFEF group has significantly higher risk of complications than ORIF group does. So LIFEF is not recommended in the treatment of pilon fracture.Copyright © 2017 Daping Hospital and the Research Institute of Surgery of the Third Military Medical University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

11 keywords...

hide…