Efficacy of suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approach in tibial intramedullary nail fixation for tibial fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the efficacy of suprapatellar versus infrapatellar approach in tibial intramedullary nail fixation for tibial fracture. Methods Clinical trials that evaluated suprapatellar approach and infrapatellar approach for tibia intramedullary nailing fixation were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese Biology Medicine (CBM), Wanfang, Weipu and CNKI databases. Methodological qualities of the included studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine whether overall results were reliable. Publication bias was detected using Begg's test and Egger's test. Lysholm score, reoperation rate, Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, operation time, intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay were selected to evaluate the clinical effect of suprapatellar approach and infrapatellar approach in tibial intramedullary nail fixation for tibial fracture. Results Two randomized controlled trials and six case-controlled studies involving 787 patients were included in the analysis. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were statistically significant. No significant publication bias was detected by Begg's test or Egger's test. Our meta-analysis indicated that suprapatellar approach had significantly higher Lysholm score (MD=1.04, 95%CI 0.82-1.26, P 0.05). Conclusion Compared with infrapatellar approach, suprapatellar approach in intramedullary nail fixation for tibial fracture can better relieve the pain, keep stability and motion of the knee joint and promote function recovery of knee joint. Key words: Tibial fractures; Fracture fixation, intramedullary; Suprapatellar approach
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".