Erik Hohmann1, Vaida Glatt2, Kevin Tetsworth3. 1. Clinical Medical School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. Electronic address: ehohmann@hotmail.com. 2. Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia; Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Orthopaedic Research Institute of Australia, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes and complications between anterior humeral minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and the 2 standard techniques, either open reduction and plating or humeral nailing. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify relevant randomized controlled trials in the English- and German-language literature. Eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing at least 1 surgical intervention with MIPO and reporting the primary clinical outcome using a validated functional scoring system and description of complications. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot, and the risk of bias was established using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool. Heterogeneity was assessed using χ(2) and I(2) statistics. RESULTS: Eight prospective randomized studies (N = 376) met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled estimate for clinical outcome showed that MIPO resulted in a significantly better outcome (standardized mean difference, 0.366; 95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.571; P = .0001; I(2) = 61%). The pooled estimate for all complications showed that the open reduction-internal fixation/nail group had a significantly higher complication rate (odds ratio, 0.507; 95% confidence interval, 0.285 to 0.905; P = .021; I(2) = 97%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence indicates the MIPO approach has better clinical outcomes with a lower rate of complications compared with alternative surgical techniques. However, the results of this meta-analysis are limited by problems inherent in the primary studies, including poor reporting of randomization protocols, as well as possible attrition bias and reporting bias, of the primary studies. Future publications may therefore change the trend of the pooled estimate in either direction.
HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes and complications between anterior humeral minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and the 2 standard techniques, either open reduction and plating or humeral nailing. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify relevant randomized controlled trials in the English- and German-language literature. Eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing at least 1 surgical intervention with MIPO and reporting the primary clinical outcome using a validated functional scoring system and description of complications. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot, and the risk of bias was established using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool. Heterogeneity was assessed using χ(2) and I(2) statistics. RESULTS: Eight prospective randomized studies (N = 376) met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled estimate for clinical outcome showed that MIPO resulted in a significantly better outcome (standardized mean difference, 0.366; 95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.571; P = .0001; I(2) = 61%). The pooled estimate for all complications showed that the open reduction-internal fixation/nail group had a significantly higher complication rate (odds ratio, 0.507; 95% confidence interval, 0.285 to 0.905; P = .021; I(2) = 97%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence indicates the MIPO approach has better clinical outcomes with a lower rate of complications compared with alternative surgical techniques. However, the results of this meta-analysis are limited by problems inherent in the primary studies, including poor reporting of randomization protocols, as well as possible attrition bias and reporting bias, of the primary studies. Future publications may therefore change the trend of the pooled estimate in either direction.
Authors: Kamil M Amer; Adam M Kurland; Brendan Smith; Zuhdi Abdo; Rami Amer; Michael M Vosbikian; Irfan H Ahmed Journal: Arch Bone Jt Surg Date: 2022-08
Authors: Juan M Patino; Juan C Ramella; Alejandro E Michelini; Ignacio M Abdon; Emanuel Fedum Rodriguez; Alejandro F Rullan Corna Journal: JSES Int Date: 2021-03-26