SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
The efficacy of arthroscopy-assisted versus stand-alone open reduction and internal fixation for treating tibial plateau fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal surgical technique for treating tibial plateau fractures remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of arthroscopy-assisted reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) to those of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in treating tibial plateau fractures.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare surgical outcomes between ARIF versus ORIF for patients with tibial plateau fractures. Relevant studies, comprising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, were identified through searches in Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase databases. Risk of bias assessments were conducted using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs (RoB 2.0), Newcastle Ottawa scales for non-RCTs, and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for case series studies. Data synthesis utilized a random-effects model meta-analysis. The primary outcome assessed was functional outcomes, with complications considered as secondary outcomes.
resultsThere were fifteen studies (one RCT and fourteen non-RCTs) included in this study, comprising a total of 969 participants (548 in the ARIF group and 421 in the ORIF group). Although patients in the ARIF group showed a trend towards better functional outcomes compared to the ORIF group, the difference was not statistically significant (Hospital for special surgery score, mean difference (MD) = 5.13, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-1.67 to 11.92, I²=83%; Knee society score, MD = 5.84, 95% CI=-1.18 to 12.86, I²=74%). No significant differences were noted in infection, stiffness, DVT, and overall complications between two groups. The ARIF group included ten case series studies with a total of 302 patients. The pooled mean Rasmussen Radiological Score was 16.59 (95% CI, 15.72 to 17.50), and the pooled mean Rasmussen Clinical Score was 27.38 (95% CI, 26.45 to 28.33).
conclusionThe findings of this study reveal no significant difference in clinical outcomes and complication rates between ARIF and ORIF. Additionally, this study found that the complication rate for patients undergoing ARIF falls within previously reported ranges. This suggests that ARIF is a reliable and effective surgical option for treating tibial plateau fractures, even in cases involving high-energy trauma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.