MIPO versus nailing for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised clinical trials and observational studies
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, ISSN: 1615-3146, Vol: 48, Issue: 1, Page: 47-59
2022
- 13Citations
- 42Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations13
- Citation Indexes13
- 13
- CrossRef1
- Captures42
- Readers42
- 42
Review Description
Purpose: There is no consensus on the optimal operative technique for humeral shaft fractures. This meta-analysis aims to compare minimal-invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) with nail fixation for humeral shaft fractures regarding healing, complications and functional results. Methods: PubMed/Medline/Embase/CENTRAL/CINAHL were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies comparing MIPO with nailing for humeral shaft fractures. Effect estimates were pooled across studies using random effects models and presented as weighted odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Analyses were repeated stratified by study design (RCTs and observational studies). Results: A total of 2 RCTs (87 patients) and 5 observational studies (595 patients) were included. The effects estimated in observational studies and RCTs were similar in direction and magnitude for all outcomes except operation duration. MIPO has a lower risk for non-union (RD 7%; OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1–0.5) and re-intervention (RD 13%; OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1–0.8). Functional shoulder (SMD 1.0, 95% CI 0.2–1.8) and elbow scores (SMD 0.4, 95% CI 0–0.8) were better among patients treated with MIPO. The risk for radial nerve palsy following surgery was equal (RD 2%; OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3–1.2) and nerve function recovered spontaneously in all patients in both groups. No difference was detected with regard to infection, time to union and operation duration. Conclusion: MIPO has a considerable lower risk for non-union and re-intervention, leads to better shoulder function and, to a lesser extent, better elbow function compared to nailing. Although nailing appears to be a viable option, the evidence suggests that MIPO should be the preferred treatment of choice. The learning curve of minimal-invasive plating should, however, be taken into account when interpreting these results.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85100194652&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00068-020-01585-w; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33452548; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00068-020-01585-w; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00068-020-01585-w; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00068-020-01585-w
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know