SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2026
Surgical outcomes and complications of fixation strategies for distal tibial fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple fixation options exist for distal tibial fractures, but the optimal approach remains controversial. Common techniques includeopen reduction and internal fixation(ORIF), minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO), external fixation combined with limited open reduction and internal fixation (EF + LORIF), intramedullary nailing (IMN), and retrograde tibial nailing (RTN).
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched through March 19, 2026. Network meta-analysis (R v4.5.1) assessed operation time, fracture healing time, malunion, delayed union/nonunion, and infection, reporting MDs or RRs with 95% CIs.
resultsEleven randomized controlled trials and 18 cohort studies (2145 patients) were included. MIPO was associated with a longer operative time and a longer time to union than IMN-IP (MD = 8.23, 95% CI 0.44-16.01; and MD = 1.02, 95% CI 0.10-1.93, respectively). For malunion, ORIF had a lower risk than MIPO (RR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.11-0.82), whereas MIPO had a higher risk than EF + LORIF (RR = 3.26, 95% CI 1.08-9.80) and IMN-SP (RR = 4.03, 95% CI 1.30-12.48). ORIF, EF + LORIF, and IMN-SP also showed lower malunion risk than IMN-IP. No significant differences were observed for delayed union and nonunion. Infection risk was generally higher with ORIF and MIPO than with several comparators, particularly EF + LORIF and intramedullary nailing-based strategies.
conclusionsNo single strategy was consistently superior. Operation time and impaired union ( delayed union and nonunion) did not differ significantly among techniques. MIPO may be associated with longer time to union than IMN-IP and higher malunion risk than EF + LORIF and IMN-SP. Infection risk appeared higher with ORIF and MIPO in network estimates, although several comparisons remained uncertain. Findings should be interpreted in light of imprecision and study-level heterogeneity. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: INPLASY2025120055.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42709240What 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.