Arthroscopically assisted versus open reduction internal fixation for ankle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundOpen reduction and internal fixation were routinely used to treat patients with unstable ankle fractures (ORIF). However, some patients may experience persistent ankle pain and disability following ORIF due to untreated intra-articular lesions. Moreover, ankle fractures may be treated with arthroscopically assisted reduction and internal fixation (ARIF). This study aimed to compare the feasibility and benefits of ARIF versus ORIF for ankle fractures.MethodsWe performed this meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search was conducted for comparative studies comparing ARIF and ORIF for ankle fractures. Nine studies were included in the analysis of clinical and secondary outcomes. In summary, we calculated the mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), confidence interval, and p value.ResultsThis meta-analysis demonstrated that the ARIF group achieved a higher Olerud-Molander Ankle (OMA) score (MD: 6.6; 95% CI 0.20 to 13.0; p = 0.04) and lower visual analog scale (VAS) score (MD: - 0.36; 95% CI - 0.64 to - 0.10; p = 0.01) at the final follow-up. Nevertheless, the smallest treatment effect of OMA score and VAS score did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). There were longer surgery time (MD: 15.0; 95% CI 10.7 to 19.3; p < 0.01) and lower complication rates (RR: 0.53; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.89; p = 0.02) in ARIF compared with ORIF. The random-effect model suggested no significant difference in the arthritis change rate between the two groups.ConclusionIn summary, the results of this meta-analysis indicated that ARIF and ORIF are comparable in terms of providing pain relief and improving function for patients with ankle fractures. Therefore, the choice between the two techniques should be based on the patient's individual factors and the surgeon's personal preference.