No abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

No abstract

Purpose: To assess the difference between preformed anatomically shaped osteosynthesis plates and patient-specific implants versus conventional flat plates for the treatment of skeletal fractures in terms of anatomical reduction, operation time, approach, patient outcomes, and complications. Material and Methods: MEDLINE (1950 to February 2023), EMBASE (1966 to February 2023), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to February 2023) databases were searched. Eligible studies were randomised clinical trials, prospective controlled clinical trials, and prospective and retrospective cohort studies (n ≥ 10). Inclusion criteria were studies reporting the outcomes of preformed anatomically shaped osteosynthesis plates and patient-specific implants versus conventional flat plates after treating skeletal fractures. Outcome measures included anatomical reduction, stability, operation time, hospitalisation days, patients’ outcomes, and complications. Two independent reviewers assessed the abstracts and analysed the complete texts and methodologies of the included studies. Results: In total, 21 out of the 5181 primarily selected articles matched the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in operation time in favour of the preformed anatomical plates and patient-specific implants versus conventional plates. Significant differences in operation time were found for the orbital (95% CI: −50.70–7.49, p = 0.008), upper limb (95% CI: −17.91–6.13, p < 0.0001), and lower limb extremity groups (95% CI: −20.40–15.11, p < 0.00001). The mean difference in the rate of anatomical reduction in the lower limb extremity group (95% CI: 1.04–7.62, p = 0.04) was also in favour of using preformed anatomical plates and patient-specific implants versus conventional plates. Conclusions: This systematic review showed a significant mean difference in surgery time favouring the use of preformed anatomical plates and patient-specific implants for orbital, upper, and lower limb extremity fractures. Additionally, preformed anatomical plates and patient-specific implants in the lower limb group result in a significantly higher rate of anatomical reduction versus conventional flat plates.