Skip to main content

Table 1 The characteristics of included studies

From: Comparing external fixators and intramedullary nailing for treating open tibia fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author

Country

Age (mean, years)

Gender (male/female)

Sample size

Follow-up (mean, month)

Materials

GA classification

IMN/EF

IMN

EF

IMN/EF

IMN/EF

IMN

EF

Holbrook [23]

USA

28/25

NA

NA

29/28

16.8/18.5

Ender

half-pin

I, II, III

Tornetta [24]

USA

41/37

11/4

9/5

15/14

21b

Gross-Kempf, Alta and AO

Hoffman and Ace

IIIB

Tu [25]

Taiwan

38.5a

30/6c

18/18

20.5b

Russell-Taylor and AO

Hoffmann

IIIA, IIIB

Henley [26]

USA

33/33

79/21

53/15

104/70

15.7/17.6

NA

half-pin

II, IIIA, IIIB

Inan [6]

Turkey

31.7/32.3

24/5

28/4

29/32

43.3/46.5

Russell-Taylor, Synthesnails

and Orthofixnails

Ilizarov

IIIA

Mohseni [27]

Iran

30.8/28.92

20/5

22/3

25/25

12b

NA

AO tubular plate

IIIA, IIIB

Garg [15]

India

40.44/38.76

18/7

19 /6

25/25

36b

NA

Half-Pin

IIIA, IIIB

Haonga [17]

Tanzania

33.3/31.8

98/13

91/19

111/110

12b

SIGN

AO uniplanar Dispofix

I, II, III

Kyengera [16]

Uganda

39/39

21/10

16/8

31/24

12/4.5

NA

NA

II, IIIA

  1. USA the United States of America, IMN intramedullary nail; EF: external fixation, NA not available, GA Gustilo–Anderson
  2. a,bMean age and follow-up of patients was included, respectively, regardless of IMN or EF
  3. cGender of patients was included, regardless of man or female