Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation for patella fractur
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of MIPF and ORIF for patella fractures. Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) has long been the conventional procedure for managing displaced patella fracture. This surgical approach has certain drawbacks, which might affect clinical outcomes and patient prognosis. Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation (MIPF) was proposed to overcome these disadvantages. Few in-depth investigations have been performed to determine the superiority of MIPF over ORIF.

--A total of 304 patients were included in the meta-analysis.

--Pooled analysis revealed that patients with MIPF had a significantly reduced pain score (MD = 1.30) and increased knee extension angles (MD = 0.72) at 3-month follow-up.

--Furthermore, knee flexion angles (MD = 8.96) and joint functionality (SMD = 0.54) had statistically improved at 2 years. However, no difference was observed between MIPF and ORIF with regard to the surgical time.

--The risk of complications (OR = 0.10) and implant removal rate (OR = 0.20) were significantly lower with MIPF than with ORIF.

In terms of pain score, knee range of motion, joint functionality, complications, and implant removal rate, MIPF is preferred above ORIF. As a result, it can be used instead of ORIF.