Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Plate Osteosynthesis versus Interlocking Intramedullary Nail Fixation in Treating Extra-Articular Distal Tibial Fractures in Adults. A Systematic Review
Authors: El-kholy Mohammed Nasser , Yousry Ahmed Hassan , Kamel Mohamed Elsayed 
Published: August 2023

Background
IM nailing and MIPPO fixation remain viable options for management of distal tibia fractures. IM nailing provides superior operation time, union time, and time to full weight-bearing as well as a lower incidence of superficial and deep infection, but may provide inferior alignment and is associated with residual knee pain. MIPPO fixation provides superior alignment and avoids knee pain, but it has a higher rate of soft-tissue complications and hardware irritation. This review revealed that MIPPO has a higher risk of both superficial and deep infection among patients treated with MIPPO compared to IMN. In the MIPPO technique, 15% developed a superficial infection, compared to 7% after IMN, and 14% developed a deep infection, compared to 6.3% after IMN.

Aim of the Work
to provide a complete overview of the optimal surgical treatment of distal tibia fractures by evaluating and comparing the clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO) vs Interlocking intramedullary nail (IMN) for treating extra-articular distal tibial fractures. Outcomes of interest include operation time, time to union, non-union, mal-union, infection, secondary operations, and functional outcomes (quality of life scores and ankle scores).

Patients and Methods
In terms of union complication, IMN has a higher incidence of malunion which occurred in 14.7% of the patients after IMN compared to 8.8% after MIPPO fixation. The incidence of non-union was similar in both treatment methods, it occurred in 3.5% of patients. In addition to union rate, the union time was significantly shorter after IMN fixation compared to the MIPPO technique especially in AO 43A fracture type and the closed fractures. The mean time for union was 18 weeks in IMN compared to 20 weeks in MIPPO.

Results
Nine studies including 813 patients reported on operation time with an overall weighted mean operation time of 74.1 minutes (range 56.4 – 124 minutes) in IMN and 85.4 minutes (range 51.4 – 124 minutes) in MIPPO. The operation time in the IMN was significantly shorter compared to MIPPO (WMD -11.24 minutes, 95% CI -15.44 to -7.05, P &lt; 0.05) with significant moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 68%).

Conclusion
Based on this study, both MIPPO and IMN have similar therapeutic efficacy regarding the functional outcome and can be used safely in distal tibial extra-articular fractures. Although IMN is advantageous over MIPPO with a lower incidence of infection and implant irritation symptoms, shorter operation time, earlier weight-bearing, and earlier union, it leads to a higher rate of mal-union and anterior knee pain. Overall, choosing an implant based on the findings of this meta-analysis is difficult and should be done on a caseby-case basis. Patients who have a high risk for infection (due to high age, comorbidities, smoking, or severe soft tissue injury) should preferably be treated with a nail. MIPPO fixation may be more beneficial to young, active, and healthy patients who are less prone to infection because it reduces the risk of knee pain and mal-union.