Waleed A Asad1, Manaf H S Younis1, Abdulaziz F Ahmed1, Talal Ibrahim2. 1. Department of Surgery, Section of Orthopedics, Hamad General Hospital, P.O. Box 3050, Doha, Qatar. 2. Department of Surgery, Section of Orthopedics, Hamad General Hospital, P.O. Box 3050, Doha, Qatar. tibrahim.ortho@gmail.com.
Abstract
AIMS: Distal tibia physeal fractures can lead to growth complications such as premature physeal closure (PPC), angular deformity and leg length discrepancy. The aim of our study was to systematically review the literature to assess whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is associated with lower rates of PPC compared to closed treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched several databases from 1966 to 2016 for studies that evaluated ORIF versus closed treatment of distal tibia physeal fractures. We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model to pool odds ratios (OR) for the comparison of PPC rate between children undergoing ORIF versus closed treatment. We also investigated the PPC rate in Salter-Harris (S-H) type I and II fractures. Descriptive, quantitative and qualitative data were extracted. RESULTS: Out of the 253 articles identified, six retrospective cohort studies were eligible, with a total of 970 distal tibia physeal fractures. The pooled OR of PPC between ORIF and closed treatment showed no statistically significant difference [OR = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48, 1.97; I 2 = 49.8%, p = 0.076]. No significant difference in the rate of PPC was detected in S-H type I and II fractures with ORIF and closed treatment [OR = 1.25, 95% CI 0.72, 2.16; I 2 = 32.1%, p = 0.22]. CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative evidence at present does not indicate an association between the method of treatment of distal tibia physeal fractures and the risk of PPC. Both treatment types are feasible, but less surgical-related complications are associated with closed treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
AIMS: Distal tibia physeal fractures can lead to growth complications such as premature physeal closure (PPC), angular deformity and leg length discrepancy. The aim of our study was to systematically review the literature to assess whether open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is associated with lower rates of PPC compared to closed treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched several databases from 1966 to 2016 for studies that evaluated ORIF versus closed treatment of distal tibia physeal fractures. We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model to pool odds ratios (OR) for the comparison of PPC rate between children undergoing ORIF versus closed treatment. We also investigated the PPC rate in Salter-Harris (S-H) type I and II fractures. Descriptive, quantitative and qualitative data were extracted. RESULTS: Out of the 253 articles identified, six retrospective cohort studies were eligible, with a total of 970 distal tibia physeal fractures. The pooled OR of PPC between ORIF and closed treatment showed no statistically significant difference [OR = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48, 1.97; I 2 = 49.8%, p = 0.076]. No significant difference in the rate of PPC was detected in S-H type I and II fractures with ORIF and closed treatment [OR = 1.25, 95% CI 0.72, 2.16; I 2 = 32.1%, p = 0.22]. CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative evidence at present does not indicate an association between the method of treatment of distal tibia physeal fractures and the risk of PPC. Both treatment types are feasible, but less surgical-related complications are associated with closed treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Entities:
Keywords:
Closed reduction; Distal tibia; Fracture; Open reduction; Physeal; Treatment