Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes After Suprapatellar Versus Infrapatellar Nailing Techniques for Tibial Shaft Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between patients who underwent intramedullary nail (IMN) fixation for tibial shaft fractures using an infrapatellar (IP) or the newer suprapatellar (SP) approach. Secondary outcomes included fluoroscopic radiation exposure, operative time, and radiographic outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search of the databases Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Study Selection. STUDY SELECTION: Level I to III studies in which patients over the age of 18 years with acute tibial shaft fractures who underwent tibial IMN fixation using an IP or SP approach for fracture fixation were assessed for inclusion. Studies with a minimum of 10 patients in each cohort that reported on postoperative patient-reported outcomes with at least 6 months of follow-up were included for analysis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Twelve studies that reported PROMs and compared IP and SP intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures were analyzed. This included 654 patients who underwent IP IMN fixation and 542 patients who underwent SP IMN fixation. A random-effects model for unadjusted/crude study estimates were pooled using inverse variance (IV) weighting for continuous variable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This review found a significant improvement in PROM for patients with tibial shaft fractures when the SP IMN technique was used. In addition, there was a significant decrease in intraoperative fluoroscopy time consistent with other radiographic findings demonstrating improved start point accuracy and reduction with SP IMN fixation of tibial shaft fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".