No abstract

Background This review was conducted to compare the efficacy of suprapatellar (SP) and infrapatellar (IP) approaches for treating distal tibial fractures with intramedullary nailing. Method This systematic review included studies comparing the outcomes of patients receiving nailing for distal tibial fractures using the SP and IP approaches. We searched the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase databases for relevant studies till 18th Sep. 2022. We used the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to assess study quality and a random-effects meta-analysis to synthesize the outcomes. We used the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous data and the odds ratio (OR) with the 95% CI for dichotomous data. Results Four studies with 586 patients (302 in the SP group and 284 in the IP group) were included in this systematic review. The SP group may have had little or no difference in pain and slightly better knee function (MD 3.90 points, 95% CI 0.83 to 5.36) and better ankle function (MD: 8.25 points, 95% CI 3.35 to 13.15) than the IP group 12 months after surgery. Furthermore, compared to the IP group, the SP group had a lower risk of malalignment (OR: 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.75; number needed to treat (NNT): 6), a lower risk for open reduction (OR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.97; NNT: 16) and a shorter surgical time (MD: − 15.14 min, 95% CI − 21.28 to − 9.00). Conclusions With more advantages, the suprapatellar approach may be the preferred nailing technique over the infrapatellar approach when treating distal tibial fractures. Level of evidence: Level III, systematic review of non-randomized studies.

In the article entitled "Influential factors of surgical decompression for ulnar nerve neuropathy in Guyon's canal," the author's name was incorrectly listed as "Cheng-Yu Yi." The correct spelling of the author's last name is "Yin." This has been corrected in the online version of the article.