SynthesisJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2026
Efficacy and safety of MIPO versus ORIF in distal tibial fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistal tibial fractures are challenging to manage owing to limited soft-tissue coverage and compromised blood supply. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) are among the widely used surgical options, but the optimal approach remains unclear. MIPO preserves periosteal blood flow with smaller incisions, while ORIF offers direct visualisation but increases soft-tissue damage. With growing comparative evidence, an updated evaluation of these techniques is necessary.
aimTo compare the efficacy and safety of MIPO versus ORIF in adult patients with distal tibial fractures.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook, we searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science till November 2025. Randomised trials and cohort studies comparing MIPO and ORIF were included. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Random-effects models were used to estimate pooled mean differences and odds ratios, and heterogeneity was assessed using I
resultsNine studies involving 530 patients met our inclusion criteria. No significant differences were found between MIPO and ORIF in AOFAS scores, union time, operative duration, hospital stay, return-to-work time, or major complications. MIPO showed trends toward shorter union time, reduced blood loss, and lower infection rates. Infection analysis showed a nonsignificant odds ratio (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.24-1.33) but a statistically significant risk difference (RD -0.06; 95% CI -0.11 to -0.01), reflecting an absolute reduction of 4.6% with MIPO. Rates of malunion, delayed union, nonunion, and wound complications were similar between groups.
conclusionsMIPO and ORIF provide comparable functional and radiological outcomes for distal tibial fractures. MIPO offers modest advantages in soft-tissue preservation and infection risk. Surgical choice should be individualized on the basis of fracture characteristics and soft-tissue condition. Further multicenter randomized trials are needed.
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.