Intramedullary Fixation Versus Plate Fixation of Distal Fibular Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

Abstract

Intramedullary fixation (IMF) has been described as a minimally invasive alternative to open reduction and internal fixation for operative treatment of distal fibular fractures in case of compromised soft tissue or severe comorbidities. The objective was to compare postoperative complications and functional outcomes of intramedullary versus plate fixation (PF) in distal fibular fractures. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases were searched for both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. A total of 26 studies was included, reporting on 1710 patients with a mean age of 51.6 years. Meta-analysis was performed on 8 comparative studies, including subgroup and sensitivity analyses on all outcomes. IMF was associated with significantly fewer wound related complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.25; p < .01), implant removals (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.93; p = .03), and nonunions (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.62; p < .01). No differences were found regarding malunion (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.21; p = .11) and the Olerud Molander Ankle Score for long-term functional outcome (mean difference, 9.56; 95% CI, 1.24 to 20.37; p = .08). Results of this study apply to a select group of patients, in which the advantages of minimal soft tissue damage by IMF are preferable to optimal fracture reduction by PF. IMF of distal fibular fractures resulted in fewer wound-related complications, implant removals, and nonunions compared with PF. Especially in elderly patients, patients with chronic comorbidity, and patients with compromised soft tissue, IMF may be preferred over PF.