Comparing Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Plate Osteosynthesis With Interlocking Intramedullary Nail Fixation for the...

Intramedullary nailing (IMN) and minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO) fixation are both viable approaches for managing distal tibia fractures. IM nailing offers advantages in terms of shorter operation time, faster union, and reduced infection rates, yet it may lead to alignment issues and residual knee pain. Conversely, MIPPO fixation provides better alignment and minimizes knee discomfort but comes with a higher risk of soft-tissue complications and hardware irritation. Notably, this review reveals that MIPPO is associated with a greater risk of both superficial (15% vs. 7% for IMN) and deep infections (14% vs. 6.3% for IMN). This study aims to comprehensively assess the optimal surgical approaches for distal tibia fractures by comparing clinical and functional outcomes between MIPPO and interlocking IMN techniques in treating extra-articular distal tibial fractures. Key outcome parameters include operation duration, union time, non-union occurrence, malunion cases, infection rates, secondary surgical interventions, and functional results, as indicated by quality of life and ankle scores. Regarding union complications, it is notable that IMN demonstrates a higher incidence of malunion, affecting 14.7% of patients compared to 8.8% in the MIPPO fixation group. Interestingly, both treatment methods exhibit a similar incidence of non-union, occurring in 3.5% of patients in both groups. Furthermore, when assessing the union time, IMN fixation notably achieves significantly shorter union times, especially evident in AO 43A fracture types and closed fractures. The mean time for union is 18 weeks with IMN compared to 20 weeks with MIPPO fixation. In our analysis of nine studies involving 813 patients, the reported operation times revealed an overall weighted mean operation time of 74.1 minutes (ranging from 56.4 to 124 minutes) for IMN and 85.4 minutes (ranging from 51.4 to 124 minutes) for MIPPO fixation. Notably, the operation time for IMN was significantly shorter compared to MIPPO, showing a weighted mean difference (WMD) of -11.24 minutes, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from -15.44 to -7.05 (P<0.05). This difference exhibited significant moderate heterogeneity (I = 68%). In light of this comprehensive study, both MIPPO and IMN emerge as equally effective therapeutic options for addressing functional outcomes in distal tibial extra-articular fractures. While IMN offers several advantages, including lower infection rates, reduced implant irritation, shorter operation time, and earlier weight-bearing and union, it is associated with a heightened risk of malunion and anterior knee pain. Consequently, the choice of implant should be tailored on a case-by-case basis. Patients at elevated infection risk, stemming from factors, such as advanced age, comorbidities, smoking, or severe soft tissue injuries, are better suited for nail treatment. Conversely, MIPPO fixation may present a more advantageous choice for young, active, and healthy patients, given its ability to mitigate the risk of knee pain and malunion.