ObjectivePilon fracture is so complex that its therapy poses a great challenge to surgeons. Few studies have compared arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy and external fixation combined with limited internal fixation (EFLIF), and an optimal choice of surgical therapy remains unclear in patients with type III Pilon fracture. Moreover, to our knowledge, very few studies have specifically evaluated arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy in Chinese elderly with type III Pilon fracture. The current study was performed to observe the clinical application of arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy, compared with EFLIF, in Chinese elderly with type III Pilon fracture.MethodsThere were 230 Chinese elderly with type III Pilon fracture assigned to undergo EFLIF (group A, n=115) or arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy (group B, n=115), and followed up for 1 year after surgery.ResultsAge, sex, causes, sides and types of Pilon fractures were not different between the two groups (P>0.05 for all). Compared with EFLIF, arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy achieved a better reduction result, bone union and Mazur system (P<0.05 for all). Patient satisfaction, screw loosening and infection prevalence were not different between the two groups (P>0.05 for all). There was no skin necrosis in the two groups. Traumatic arthritis had a significantly lower prevalence in participants with arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy than EFLIF (P<0.05 for all).ConclusionCompared with EFLIF, arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy for type III Pilon fracture significantly improved reduction result, bone union and functional status, and decreased traumatic arthritis, demonstrating that arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy is an optimal choice for type III Pilon fracture in Chinese elderly.

To compare the difference in efficacy following flexible intramedullary nailing (FIN) and external fixation (EF) for pediatric femoral shaft fractures. A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane library for relevant studies. We included controlled trials comparing complications between FIN and EF for pediatric femoral shaft fractures published before 25 November 2014. Modified Jadad scores were utilized to assess the methodological quality of the studies included. The meta-analysis was carried out using Stata 12.0 software. Six studies involving 237 patients were included. On comparison of EF, a low incidence of overall complications [relative risk (RR)=0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19-0.46; P<0.001] and pin-tract infection (RR=0.286, 95% CI: 0.13-0.61; P=0.001), but a high risk of soft tissue irritation (RR=1.86, 95% CI: 1.35-2.56; P<0.001) were found in patients treated with the FIN approach. No significant differences in other complications were found. On the basis of current evidence, the use of FIN leads to fewer complications than EF and may be considered as the first-line approach in the treatment of femoral shaft fractures.