External fixation versus intramedullary nailing for the management of open tibial fracture: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: Tibial shaft fractures are the most common type of long-bone fractures. External fixation (EF) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) are widely used surgical techniques for the definitive fixation of open tibial shaft fractures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare EF to IMN for the definitive fixation of open tibial fractures. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for eligible studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared EF to IMN for skeletally mature adults with open tibial fracture (Gustilo I, II, and III). We evaluated the following outcomes: superficial infection, pin-track infection, deep infection, malunion, nonunion, delayed union, and implant/hardware failure. The risk ratio (RR) was used to represent the desired outcomes. The statistical analysis was performed using the random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 12 RCTs that enrolled 1090 participants were deemed eligible for the analysis. EF showed a significantly higher rate of superficial infection, pin track infection, and malunion compared to IMN (RR = 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34 to 3.95; RR = 13.52, 95% CI: 6.16 to 29.66; RR = 2.29, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.73, respectively). No substantial difference was found between EF and IMN in terms of deep infection, nonunion, delayed union, or implant/hardware failure (RR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.98; RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; RR = 1.50, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.33; RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.60, respectively). DISCUSSION: The findings of our meta-analysis are consistent with the previous systematic reviews excepts for the implant/hardware failure which was found to be significant in favour of IMN by one of the previous reviews. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirms that IMN is better than EF with respect to clinical outcomes and complication rate for the definitive fixation of open tibial fracture.

Public awareness about arthritic diseases in Saudi Arabia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Raising public knowledge and perception would have a discernible impact on providing optimal care and reducing the burden of arthritis in the community. This systematic review aimed to identify the public knowledge about the common arthritic conditions in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL for relevant literature. We included questionnaire-based cross-sectional studies performed in Saudi Arabia assessing the public perception of general knowledge, causes/risk factors, signs/symptoms, and relieving/management measures of the common arthritic conditions including osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and gout. The meta-analysis was performed on outcomes reported in ≥ two studies utilizing a random-effects model RESULTS: Ten studies representing 6703 participants were deemed eligible for inclusion in this review. A total of 35 questions were feasible to be included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis estimated that 83.51%, 54.51%, and 80.42% have ever hearsd or read about OA, RA, and gout. Joint pain and swelling were perceived to be the main signs/symptoms of OA, RA, and gout. 7.5% think OA is predisposed by genetics while only 33.6% think the same of RA. RA knowledge in general is suboptimum. Only 27.04% think medications can help in the management of gout. CONCLUSION: The Saudi public perception of the general knowledge and causes/risk factors of the most common arthritic conditions was acceptable. The level of knowledge about other aspects of the common arthritic conditions is still limited and needs to be addressed by future educational interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022345274.

Comparison of immobilization periods following open reduction and internal fixation of distal radius fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. INTRODUCTION: The use of volar locking plate (VLP) in the fixation of fracture fragments promised a new era in the management of distal radius fracture (DRF). PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To compare the patient-reported outcomes, functional outcomes, pain, and adverse events between the different periods of immobilization following open reduction and internal fixation of DRFs with VLP. METHODS: We searched Medline/Pubmed, Web of Science, Ovid, and CINAHL. The inclusion criteria was randomized controlled trials that compared different immobilization periods after open reduction and internal fixation of DRFs with VLP. The last search was performed on 2 June 2020. The different immobilization periods were divided into the following 3 groups: ≤1-week group, 2-3-week group, and 5-6-week group. RESULTS: Seven eligible randomized controlled trials provided data on 509 patients. We found that compared to 5-6-week group, ≤1-week and 2-3-week groups showed a reduction in overall Patient-Reported Wrist Evaluation score (SMD = -0.48, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.22, P < .001; SMD = -0.69, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.41, P < .001, respectively). We also found that there were improvements in the other patient-reported outcomes including overall Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score and pain; and functional outcomes including overall grip strength and range of motion measures in favor of ≤1-week and 2-3-week groups. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that compared to immobilization for 5 to 6 weeks after DRF repair, immobilization for ≤1 week or 2-3 weeks showed improvements in the patients-reported outcomes and functional outcomes. The differences between the 3 immobilization groups may not be clinically important considering the small changes as follow up progresses.

Short leg cast versus orthotic removable support for the management of pseudo-Jones avulsion fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The fifth metatarsal base avulsion fracture (i.e., Pseudo-Jones fracture) is one of the most common foot fractures. The management of pseudo-Jones fractures could be carried out surgically or conservatively. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide an update about the efficacy of orthotic removable support compared to short-leg casting for individuals with pseudo-Jones fracture. METHODS: We searched Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical outcomes of orthotic removable support and short-leg cast for adult individuals with a fifth metatarsal base avulsion fracture. We used 95% as a confidence level and P <0.05 as a threshold. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used for the continuous outcomes, and the risk ratio (RR) was used for the dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 6 RCTs incorporating 403 individuals out were deemed eligible. There was no significant difference between orthotic removable support and short-leg casting regarding AOFAS score (standardized mean difference (SMD)= 0.31, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.8), pain on VAS score (SMD= -0.08, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.22), VAS-FA score (SMD= 0.22, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.62) EQ-5D VAS score, and non-union rate (RR=0.37, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.74). CONCLUSION: The current meta-analysis reveals that there is no difference between orthotic removable support and short-leg casting for the conservative management of individuals sustaining pseudo-Jones fracture.