Comparison of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and conventional plate osteosynthesis for humeral shaft fracture: A meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and conventional plate osteosynthesis (CPO) for humeral shaft fracture.


METHODS
Potential academic articles were identified from the Cochrane Library, Medline (1966-2016.3), PubMed (1966-2016.3), Embase (1980-2016.3), and ScienceDirect (1966-2016.3). Gray studies were identified from the references of the included literature. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCT involving MIPO and CPO for humeral shaft fracture were included. Two independent reviewers performed independent data abstraction. I statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. Fixed or random effects model was used for meta-analysis.


RESULTS
Two RCTs and 3 non-RCTs met the inclusion criteria. There was a lower incidence of iatrogenic radial nerve palsy in patients with MIPO (P = 0.006). There was no statistically significant difference in in the risk of developing nonunion, delay union, malformation, screw loosening, infection, operation time, UCLA, and MEPS function score between the 2 groups.


CONCLUSIONS
MIPO decreased incidence of iatrogenic radial nerve palsy and is an efficacy and safety technique for humeral shaft fracture. Due to the limited quality and data of the evidence currently available, more high-quality RCTs are required.
Department of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China.
Bin-Feng
BF
Yu
Liang-le
LL
Liu
Guo-Jing
GJ
Yang
Lei
L
Zhang
Xi-Peng
XP
Lin
D000328:Adult; D001860:Bone Plates; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D005260:Female; D005593:Fracture Fixation, Internal / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D006810:Humeral Fractures / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D019060:Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D016896:Treatment Outcome
Int Orthop. 2010 Feb;34(1):131-5
19301000
Trauma Mon. 2015 Aug;20(3):e26271
26543844
ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6
12956787
J Orthop Trauma. 2015 Apr;29(4):189-94
25210833
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013 Jul;23 (5):527-34
23412172
J Orthop Sci. 2014 Mar;19(2):282-91
24248550
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Nov;24(11):1741-8
26480879
Int Orthop. 2014 May;38(5):1037-43
24337886
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2000 Jun;86(4):346-59
10880934
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2012 Dec;20(3):292-6
23255632
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Nov;88(11):1469-73
17075092
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012 Feb;98 (1):54-60
22204793
Injury. 2010 Jul;41(7):e21-27
19523625
Injury. 2005 Apr;36(4):530-8
15755436
Orthopedics. 2010 Aug 11;33(8):null
20704103
J Orthop Trauma. 2012 Oct;26(10):585-9
22534690
Orthopedics. 2015 Jun;38(6):e485-9
26091221
Injury. 2011 Nov;42(11):1289-93
21353219
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jul;20(5):833-44
21393016
Int J Surg. 2013;11(9):864-8
23994004
Orthopedics. 2013 Aug;36(8):e1025-32
23937748
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Nov;24(11):e307-11
26341025
J Orthop Trauma. 2001 Feb;15(2):90-5
11232660
Int Orthop. 2009 Dec;33(6):1719-23
18704415
Hand Clin. 2007 Nov;23(4):437-48, vi
18054671
Indian J Orthop. 2008 Jul;42(3):247-51
19753148
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013 Jun;133(6):811-7
23532372
Injury. 2010 Feb;41(2):169-72
19735916