Olecranon osteotomy vs. triceps-sparing for open reduction and internal fixation in treatment of distal humerus intercondylar fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) was a standard treatment approach for fracture at distal humerus intercondylar, whereas the optimal way before ORIF remains inconclusive. We, therefore, performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of olecranon osteotomy vs. triceps-sparing approach for patients with distal humerus intercondylar fracture.MethodsThe electronic searches were systematically performed in PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure from initial inception till December 2019. The primary endpoint was the incidence of excellent/good elbow function, and the secondary endpoints included Mayo elbow performance score, duration of operation, blood loss, and complications.ResultsNine studies involving a total of 637 patients were selected for meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between olecranon osteotomy and triceps-sparing approach for the incidence of excellent/good elbow function (odds ratio OR]: 1.37; 95% confidence interval CI]: 0.69–2.75; P = 0.371), Mayo elbow performance score (weight mean difference WMD]: 0.17; 95% CI: −2.56 to 2.89; P = 0.904), duration of operation (WMD: 4.04; 95% CI: −28.60 to 36.69; P = 0.808), blood loss (WMD: 33.61; 95% CI: −18.35 to 85.58; P = 0.205), and complications (OR: 1.93; 95% CI: 0.49–7.60; P = 0.349). Sensitivity analyses found olecranon osteotomy might be associated with higher incidence of excellent/good elbow function, longer duration of operation, greater blood loss, and higher incidence of complications as compared with triceps-sparing approach.ConclusionsThis study found olecranon osteotomy did not yield additional benefit on the incidence of excellent/good elbow function, while the duration of operation, blood loss, and complications in patients treated with olecranon osteotomy might be inferior than triceps-sparing approach.