Intramedullary versus plate fixation of both bone forearm fractures in skeletally immature patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Both bone forearm fractures (BBFFs) are a common injury amongst the pediatric population. The main indications of surgical fixation are open, irreducible, or unstable fractures. The two most commonly used surgical techniques are closed or open reduction with intramedullary fixation (IMF) and open reduction with plate fixation (PF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine which fixation method is superior for BBFFs.

METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing IMF and PF. We extracted data on union rates, complications, early hardware removal rates, reoperation rates, and radiographic, clinical, and perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 922 patients (539 IMF and 383 PF). Similar union rates were achieved by both fixation technique. IMF was associated with a higher incidence of symptomatic hardware, and early hardware removal. Better restoration of the radial bow was observed with the PF group, especially in older children and adolescents. The rate of excellent function was comparable between groups, whereas better cosmesis was reported with the IMF group. Despite shorter fluoroscopy time and immobilization time, PF demonstrated longer tourniquet time, operating time, and hospital stay compared to IMF.

CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference between IMF and PF in terms of union rates and functional outcomes taking in consideration the merits and demerits of each technique. High-quality randomized controlled trials are, therefore, necessary to determine the superiority of one fixation technique over the other.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.