The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted (RA) percutaneous hollow screw fixation with traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for the treatment of calcaneal fractures through a systematic review and meta-analysis. An extensive search was conducted in the following databases-PubMed, CNKI, Embase, and the Cochrane Library-to gather research on patients with calcaneal fractures published up to July 2024. This search focuses on studies comparing the effectiveness of robot-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation versus ORIF. We will include studies published in both English and Chinese. Our screening process adhered strictly to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, emphasizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The ROBINS-I tool was utilized to evaluate the risk of bias in non-randomized studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4.1. The final analysis incorporated six retrospective cohort studies comprising 247 patients-122 treated with robotic-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation and 125 with conventional open reduction and internal fixation. The findings indicated that patients undergoing robotic-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation experienced advantages over those receiving conventional treatment in terms of reduced hospital stay, lower estimated blood loss, and higher AOFAS scores at both 3 and 6 months. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two methods concerning operative time, fracture healing duration, or the frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopies. Robotic-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation is a safe and viable treatment approach for patients with calcaneal fractures. When compared to ORIF methods, this robotic-assisted technique demonstrated significant benefits, including reduced hospital stay, lower estimated blood loss, and improved AOFAS scores at both 3 and 6 months.

Background: The aim of this study is to compare the surgical and non-operative management of displaced radial head fractures via a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: RCTs comparing management of isolated, displaced radial head fractures in adults were included in our review and statistical analysis. A systematic review of electronic databases (Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library) were screened for comparative RCTs reporting on the management of displaced radial head fractures in August 2021. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for eligibility and an assessment of bias was performed for each study. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of the included RCTs was performed. Results: Five RCTs (326 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. Treatment methods included radial head arthroplasty (RHA), open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) with metal implants (ORIF-M), ORIF with biodegradable implants (ORIF-B) and non-operative management. In our network meta-analysis of \'good\' or \'excellent\' patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), RHA was significantly favourable to ORIF-M (OR: 0.04, CrI: 0.0011, 0.87), ORIF-B (OR: 0.1 CrI: 0.00076, 6.37). Nonoperative treatment was not shown to be significantly worse than RHA (OR: 0.01 CrI: 2.5e-0.5, 3.61). Conclusions: This network meta-analysis shows that in displaced radial head fractures, RHA is associated with significantly superior functional PROMs than ORIF-M based on the evidence available. Nonoperative management has not been shown to be significantly worse. Level of Evidence: Level III (Therapeutic).

Pediatric ankle injuries are common; ankle epiphyseal fractures are also common in children. But isolated distal epiphyseal fibular fractures of the distal fibula are clinically rare. We describe one unusual case of an adolescent with a completely displaced Salter-Harris type II distal fibular epiphyseal fracture. The attempt of closed reduction failed, and the patient required open reduction and internal fixation. The localized periosteum and the superior peroneal retinaculum were avulsed from the distal fibular metaphysis, with the peroneal tendons underneath exposed but no obvious subluxation. To the best of our knowledge, this combination of injuries has not been previously reported.

BACKGROUND Hoffa fractures are an uncommon form of coronal fracture that impact the femoral condyle. As a result, they are not very prevalent. It is necessary to perform anatomical reduction and rigorous fixation on these fractures; however, there is no consensus among medical professionals on the surgical procedure and implant that would be the most successful in treating these fractures. CASE REPORT A 50-year-old woman who had poliomyelitis in her right lower limb presented with a displaced medial Hoffa fracture of her left knee. She had fallen and was suffering from poliomyelitis. The trauma that caused this fracture had a modest energy level. Open reduction and internal fixation with 2 retrograde cannulated screws were included in her surgical procedure. An approach known as the medial parapatellar route was used for this treatment. As part of her postoperative rehabilitation, she participated in physiotherapy, exercises that did not require weight bearing, exercises that used passive and active assistance, activities that involved partial and full weight bearing, and exercises that involved complete weight bearing. At the 2-year follow-up, the patient\'s left knee continued to be painless and stable, and it had unrestricted range of motion across the whole extremity. It was determined via radiographs that the fracture had healed without any problems or arthritic changes developing. She was able to walk without help and carry out her daily tasks since she was able to walk with the use of a cane. CONCLUSIONS Retrograde cannulated screws can be a reliable and successful choice for treatment of medial Hoffa fractures, with positive results according to both clinical and radiographic characteristics. Further research is needed to analyze the outcomes over a longer period of time and make comparisons between this technique and others.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the treatment and outcomes of supracondylar humeral fractures (SHFs) in children older than 10 years of age at the time of injury.
METHODS: The study analyzed clinical data from 60 patients who sustained SHF, all over the age of 10 years, were analyzed. The patients included 49 males and 11 females with a mean age of 10.9 ± 0.9 years (range, 10 to 14.5). All patients underwent surgical treatment under general anesthesia. Closed reduction (CR) and percutaneous fixation were the primary treatment, with open reduction and internal fixation being employed only in cases CR was unsuccessful. The study assessed the healing of fractures by measuring the radiographic angles, including the carrying angle (RCA), Baumann\'s angle (BA), and metaphyseal-diaphyseal angle (MDA) on anteroposterior radiographs of the elbow joint. In addition, the study evaluated whether the anterior humeral line (AHL) appropriately passed through the middle third of the capitellum. The final follow-up visit used the Mayo Elbow Performance Index score (MEPI) and Flynn\'s criteria to analyze the recovery of elbow function.
RESULTS: There were 15 (25%) SHF type II, 17 (28.3%) type III and 28 (46.7%) type IV. Of the 60 patients, 56 (93.3%) underwent successful CR, whereas 4 (6.7%) required open reduction and internal fixation because of an unsuccessful CR. The final follow-up showed the average BA as 72° ± 5.3°, the average MDA as 88.3° ± 2.8°, and the average RCA as 9.6° ± 3.9°. The AHL bisected accurately the capitellum in 59 cases (98.3%). The average range of elbow flexion-extension was 146.6° ± 8.6°, whereas the average MEPI score was 99.9 ± 0.6; 98.3% (n=59) were rated as excellent and 1.7% (n=1) were rated as good. According to Flynn\'s criteria, 86.7% had an excellent outcome (n=52), 10% had a good outcome (n=6), and 3.3% had a poor outcome (n=2). Only 1 patient (1.7%) experienced redisplacement. Eight cases of nerve injury were reported, with 7 involving the radial nerve and 1 involving the ulnar nerve; all resolved spontaneously.
CONCLUSIONS: CR and percutaneous fixation have been shown to be effective in treating SHF in 93.3% of children aged 10 years old and older at the time of injury, with favorable radiographic and functional outcomes and a low risk of secondary displacement. Open reduction should only be considered when CR is ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: Both open and arthroscopic surgical techniques have been used for PCL avulsion fractures. The goal of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the different management strategies proposed for PCL avulsion fractures in children.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed utilizing Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE databases from 1977 to the present. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Data were selected and extracted by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies reporting injuries in pediatric patients with PCL avulsion injuries. Exclusion criteria were combined PCL and ACL injuries and ligamentous injuries requiring reconstruction. A subgroup analysis was performed between open reduction and arthroscopic surgeries.
RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included in this systematic review. Patient sex was reported in 39 patients with a higher number of males (32/39). The age range was 7-18 years old. In the open group, 30/31 patients had clinical improvement or returned to pre-injury activity level with two complications. Lysholm scores ranged from 66 to 99. In the arthroscopic group, 11/12 patients experienced clinical improvement or returned to normal activity levels with only one complication. Lysholm scores ranged from 90 to 100 with a mean of 95. In the non-operative group, 3/3 recovered with evidence of fracture healing, full or near full knee range of motion. One Lysholm score was reported 14 months after injury and was 100/100.
CONCLUSIONS: Open reduction and arthroscopic surgeries are effective and safe treatment options for pediatric PCL avulsion fractures-97% of open reduction and 92% of arthroscopic patients significantly improved symptoms. The complication rates for the open and arthroscopic groups were 11 and 9%, respectively. All three non-operative made full or near full recovery of pre-injury knee status.
METHODS: Systematic review of Level-II-IV studies. Prospero Registration No CRD42021290899.

BACKGROUND: Both bone forearm fractures (BBFFs) are a common injury amongst the pediatric population. The main indications of surgical fixation are open, irreducible, or unstable fractures. The two most commonly used surgical techniques are closed or open reduction with intramedullary fixation (IMF) and open reduction with plate fixation (PF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine which fixation method is superior for BBFFs.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing IMF and PF. We extracted data on union rates, complications, early hardware removal rates, reoperation rates, and radiographic, clinical, and perioperative outcomes.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 922 patients (539 IMF and 383 PF). Similar union rates were achieved by both fixation technique. IMF was associated with a higher incidence of symptomatic hardware, and early hardware removal. Better restoration of the radial bow was observed with the PF group, especially in older children and adolescents. The rate of excellent function was comparable between groups, whereas better cosmesis was reported with the IMF group. Despite shorter fluoroscopy time and immobilization time, PF demonstrated longer tourniquet time, operating time, and hospital stay compared to IMF.
CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference between IMF and PF in terms of union rates and functional outcomes taking in consideration the merits and demerits of each technique. High-quality randomized controlled trials are, therefore, necessary to determine the superiority of one fixation technique over the other.
METHODS: III.

BACKGROUND: The Lisfranc joint is an intricate podiatric medical structure that when injured can prove difficult to treat. No consensus has been established on optimal surgical management for this injury. It is widely debated whether open reduction and internal fixation or primary arthrodesis provides better outcomes for patients. Although literature has been published on this subject, no generalized guidelines have been created. The goal of this study was to analyze high-level meta-analyses to draw conclusions about surgical interventions for Lisfranc joint injuries.
METHODS: A literature review was conducted to analyze outcomes of meta-analyses from January 1, 2016, to August 31, 2021. Only high-level evidence that reported at least one of the following outcomes was included: American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scale score, visual analog scale score, total complication rate, hardware removal rate, revision surgery rate, and secondary procedure rate.
RESULTS: Six articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were then analyzed. For all of the outcome measures, primary arthrodesis was equal or superior to open reduction and internal fixation.
CONCLUSIONS: We recommend primary arthrodesis over open reduction and internal fixation for adult Lisfranc injuries.

This study investigates whether the intraoral approach to mandibular open reduction and internal fixation, through exposure to the oral cavity\'s microbiome, results in higher infection rates compared to the extraoral approach, thus addressing a critical public health concern, potentially offering an opportunity to reduce health-care costs, and aiming to guide effective clinical practice.
In this systematic review with meta-analyses, a review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Embase and PubMed for articles published between 1989 and 2023. Inclusion criteria targeted studies on open reduction and internal fixation mandibular fractures comparing intraoral and extraoral approaches and reporting infection rates. Exclusion criteria eliminated non-English articles, case reports, and studies with insufficient approach-specific data. The primary outcome was the postoperative infection rate, with surgical approach as the predictor. Covariates such as age, sex, diabetes, and smoking status were included when reported. Data were analyzed using R software, employing random-effects models due to anticipated heterogeneity (I2 statistics).
From 61 studies, 11 provided direct comparisons involving 1,317 patients-937 intraoral and 380 extraoral. Infection rates were 5.9% for intraoral and 10% for extraoral approaches. Pooled relative risk was 0.94 [95% confidence interval, 0.63, 1.39], suggesting no significant risk difference. Prevalence of infections was estimated at 9% for intraoral and 6.1% for extraoral procedures, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 84% for intraoral and 56% for extraoral).
Our meta-analysis found no significant difference in infection rates between the two approaches. There is opportunity to expand on reporting complication rates comparing the various approaches to mandibular fixation. Until these data are presented, surgeon preference may dictate the operative approach to expose the mandible for reduction and fixation.

UNASSIGNED: Proximal humerus fractures are common in the older population. A consensus on the optimal management of complex fractures requiring surgery has yet to be reached. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare clinical outcomes between reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).
UNASSIGNED: A systematic search of the literature was undertaken using the Medline®, PubMed, Embase™ and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Prospective and retrospective studies comparing clinical and patient reported results as primary outcome measures were included in this review, with secondary outcome measures including complications and revision surgery. A meta-analysis was conducted.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 326 patients from 5 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. Superior Constant-Murley scores (mean difference [MD]: 13.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.2-20.6; p<0.001), Oxford shoulder scores (MD: 4.3, 95% CI: 1.2-7.4; p=0.007), simple shoulder test scores (MD: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.01-1.89; p=0.05) and DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) scores (MD: 5.1 [1 study], 95% CI: 2.1-8.1; p=0.034) were noted in patients receiving RTSA. Range of motion and revision surgery rates were also superior in this group.
UNASSIGNED: This study suggests that RTSA affords more favourable outcomes and lower revision rates than ORIF following proximal humerus fractures. Definitive conclusions are precluded, however, owing to small sample sizes and risk of bias in retrospective studies.