The efficacy of arthroscopy-assisted versus stand-alone open reduction and internal fixation for treating tibial plateau fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical technique for treating tibial plateau fractures remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of arthroscopy-assisted reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) to those of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in treating tibial plateau fractures. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare surgical outcomes between ARIF versus ORIF for patients with tibial plateau fractures. Relevant studies, comprising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, were identified through searches in Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase databases. Risk of bias assessments were conducted using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs (RoB 2.0), Newcastle Ottawa scales for non-RCTs, and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for case series studies. Data synthesis utilized a random-effects model meta-analysis. The primary outcome assessed was functional outcomes, with complications considered as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: There were fifteen studies (one RCT and fourteen non-RCTs) included in this study, comprising a total of 969 participants (548 in the ARIF group and 421 in the ORIF group). Although patients in the ARIF group showed a trend towards better functional outcomes compared to the ORIF group, the difference was not statistically significant (Hospital for special surgery score, mean difference (MD) = 5.13, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-1.67 to 11.92, I²=83%; Knee society score, MD = 5.84, 95% CI=-1.18 to 12.86, I²=74%). No significant differences were noted in infection, stiffness, DVT, and overall complications between two groups. The ARIF group included ten case series studies with a total of 302 patients. The pooled mean Rasmussen Radiological Score was 16.59 (95% CI, 15.72 to 17.50), and the pooled mean Rasmussen Clinical Score was 27.38 (95% CI, 26.45 to 28.33). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study reveal no significant difference in clinical outcomes and complication rates between ARIF and ORIF. Additionally, this study found that the complication rate for patients undergoing ARIF falls within previously reported ranges. This suggests that ARIF is a reliable and effective surgical option for treating tibial plateau fractures, even in cases involving high-energy trauma.
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) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".