Open and closed reduction methods for intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Paul D Korytkowski; John M Panzone; Osama Aldahamsheh; Mohammed Mubarak Alkhayarin; Hanaa Omar Almohamad; Abduljabbar Alhammoud

doi:10.1016/j.jcot.2023.102256

Open and closed reduction methods for intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2023 Sep 22:44:102256. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2023.102256. eCollection 2023 Sep.

Authors

Paul D Korytkowski^{1

2}, John M Panzone^{1

2

3}, Osama Aldahamsheh^{4

2}, Mohammed Mubarak Alkhayarin⁵, Hanaa Omar Almohamad⁶, Abduljabbar Alhammoud^{7

2}

Affiliations

¹ State University of New York, Upstate Medical University College of Medicine, Syracuse, NY, USA.
² Virtual Spine Surgery Research Academy (VSSRA), USA.
³ Socially Responsible Surgery Organization, SUNY Upstate Medical University Chapter, Syracuse, NY, USA.
⁴ Department of General and Special Surgery, Orthopedic Surgery, Al-Balqa Applied University, Al-Salt, Jordan.
⁵ Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
⁶ Aleppo University, Syria.
⁷ Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tuscon, Arizona, USA.

PMID: 37822478
PMCID: PMC10562845 (available on 2024-09-22)
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2023.102256

Abstract

Introduction: Closed reduction and intramedullary nailing is the preferred surgical intervention for femoral shaft fractures. Open reduction involves opening the fracture site and is performed in various circumstances. Comparative studies of the approaches have conflicting results. We sought to compare the outcomes and complications of open and closed reduction for intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures.

Materials and methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review of comparative studies included the databases and registers PubMed (Medline), Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central (PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42022325382). Additional studies were identified through hand and citation searching. Two reviewers independently extracted data. The standardized mean difference and 95% confidence intervals were determined for continuous variables, whereas odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were assessed for dichotomous variables.

Results: Closed reduction had a higher pooled union rate (93.93%, 92.02%), an increased odds ratio for union (OR = 1.624 [95% CI: 1.004, 2.624]; p = .048), and a faster time to union (SMD = -0.292 [95% CI: -0.549, -0.0.035]; p = .026). There were no differences in operative time (SMD = 0.128 [95% CI: -0.700, 0.956] p = .762) or overall complication rate (OR = 1.314 [95% CI: 0.966, 1.787] p = .082).

Conclusions: Closed reduction has the advantage of higher union rates, quicker time to union, and lower overall infection compared to open reduction for intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures. Open reduction remains a reasonable alternative with acceptable union rates when closed reduction is not feasible.

Keywords: Closed reduction; Femoral fractures; Femur; Intramedullary nail; Open reduction.