Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of the eight included trials

From: Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis vs conventional fixation techniques for surgically treated humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis

Characteristic

An

An

Oh

Lian

Benegas

Wang

Kim

Esmailiejah

Publication year

2010

2012

2012

2013

2014

2015

2015

2015

Study design

Retro

Retro

Pro

RCT

RCT

Pro

RCT

RCT

No. of enrolled patients (MIPO vs CFT)

17:16

15:19

29:30

24:23

21:19

26:27

36:36

33:35

No. of followed patients (MIPO vs CFT)

17:16

15:19

29:30

24:23

21:19

22:23

36:32

32:33

Follow-up rate (%; MIPO vs CFT)

100:100

100:100

100:100

100:100

100:100

84.6:85.2

100:88.9

97.0:94.3

Mean follow-up time (months; MIPO vs CFT)

25.94:32.88

24.2:20.5

18:22

14:15

12:12

12:12

15

N/A

Mean age (years; MIPO vs CFT)

37.59:36.93

34.4:39.6

39.6:42

38.8:37.6

44.8:38.4

39.3:35.7

40.6:44.4

33.4:34.6

Gender (% male; MIPO vs CFT)

70.6:56.3

73.3:63.2

55.2:53.3

62.5:69.6

57.1:73.7

63.6:69.6

52.8:56.3

75:72.7

Fracture location (proximal/middle/distal; MIPO vs CFT)

0/8/9:0/9/7

0/15/0:0/19/0

6/18/5:5/20/5

0/24/0:0/23/0

N/A

4/13/5:2/15/6

4/21/11:4/16/12

N/A

Fracture classification* (A/B/C; MIPO vs CFT)

N/A

6/7/2:10/8/1

11/11/7:15/8/7

9/9/5:8/12/2

12/7/2:9/4/6

5/8/9:5/12/6

19/17/0:21/11/0

10/9/13:12/10/11

Intervention (MIPO vs CFT)

DCP vs DCP

DCP vs IMN

LCP vs LCP

DCP vs IMN

DCP vs IMN

LCP vs LCP

LCP vs LCP

DCP vs DCP

  1. RCT randomized controlled trial, Retro retrospective cohort study, Pro prospective cohort study, MIPO minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis, CFT conventional fixation techniques, N/A not available, DCP dynamic compression plate, LCP locking compression plate, IMN intramedullary nail. * AO/OTA classification