Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Plate Osteosynthesis Versus Conventional Surgery In The Treatment Of Proximal Humeral Fractures:a Meta-analysis

Objective:To evaluate and compare intraoperative and postoperative differences of minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis technique versus conventional open reduction and plate internal fixation in treatment of proximal humeral fractures.Methods:Use computers to search the main important databases:Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CNKI, Wanfang Databases, EMBASE, CBM and so on, search for relational literature and references. Collect all the relational group studies of minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis technique versus conventional open reduction and plate internal fixation in treatment of proximal humeral fractures, rigorously evaluate the methodological quality of included studies and extract the data. The analysis was performed with the software of RevMan5.2.9.Results:14literature with1009patients (MIPPO group:505patients, ORIF group:504patients) was included, Meta analysis suggests:MIPPO group compare to ORIF group, surgical incision length was short, and short operative time, less blood losses, and the bone healing after surgery required a shorter time, postoperative shoulder function score and prognosis was better, the incidence of postoperative complications was fewer,[RR=0.48,95%CI(0.29,0.78),P=0.003].Conclusion:MIPPO technology compared to conventional open reduction and plate internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with a smaller incision, short operative time, less blood loss, faster healing, better shoulder function and lesser complications. But for this study, due to the relatively small sample size RCT articles and therefore still need more large randomized controlled trials to enhance the strength of evidence and further evaluation.