Skip to main content
. 2018 Jun 19;46(7):2525–2536. doi: 10.1177/0300060518776099

Table 1.

Characteristics of the included studies

Investigators Design Group Age (y) Patients (n) Male (n) Female (n) Fractures (n) Fracture class Country Follow-up (mo) Level of evidence Result favored
Wang et al.,16 2010 RCT Two-stage ORIF 40.1 ± 10.7 27 25 2 27 B3 (n = 3)C1 (n = 9)C2 (n = 10)C3 (n = 5)* China 24 I ORIF
LIFEF 37.2 ± 10.9 29 26 3 29 B3 (n = 2)C1 (n = 7)C2 (n = 13)C3 (n = 7)*
Davidovitch et al.,12 2011 Retro. Two-stage ORIF 39 26 17 9 26 C1 (n = 3)C2 (n = 4)C3 (n = 19)* US 12 III NS
LIFEF 43 20 12 8 21 C1 (n = 2)C2 (n = 6)C3 (n = 13)*
Richards et al.,15 2012 Cohort Two-stage ORIF 40.66 ± 13.3 18 NR NR 18 C1 (n = 1)C2 (n = 1)C3 (n = 16)* US 12 II ORIF
LIFEF 46.96 ± 13.1 27 NR NR 27 C1 (n = 1)C2 (n = 5)C3 (n = 21)*
Blauth et al.,10 2001 Retro. Two-stage ORIF NR 15 NR NR 15 NR Australia 48 III NS
LIFEF NR 8 NR NR 8 NR
Deivaraju et al.,13 2015 Retro. Two-stage ORIF NR 33 NR NR 33 A (n = 4)B (n = 6)C (n = 23)* US 9 III NS
LIFEF NR 32 NR NR 32 A (n = 1)B (n = 5)C (n = 26)*
Bacon et al.,9 2007 Retro. Two-stage ORIF 39.4 ± 11.2 25 20 5 25 C1 (n = 3)C2 (n = 7)C3 (n = 15)* US 12 III NS
LIFEF 32.3 ± 10.2 13 11 2 13 C1 (n = 1)C2 (n = 3)C3 (n = 9)*
Koulouvaris et al.,14 2007 Retro. Two-stage ORIF 45.6 13 NR NR 13 B2 (n = 8)B3 (n = 0)C1 (n = 0)C2 (n = 5)C3 (n = 0) US 12 III ORIF
LIFEF 46 42 NR NR 42 B2 (n = 7)B3 (n = 4)C1 (n = 14)C2 (n = 11)C3 (n = 6)
Cisneros et al.,11 2016 Retro. Tw-stage ORIF NR 18 NR NR 18 NR India 24 III ORIF
LIFEF NR 13 NR NR 13 NR

ORIF, open reduction and internal fixation; LIFEF, limited internal fixation combined with external fixation; RCT, randomized controlled trial; Retro., retrospective; NR, not reported; NS, not significant.

*Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification [Orthopaedic Trauma Association Committee for Coding and Classification. Fracture and dislocation compendium. J Orthop Trauma 1996; 10(Suppl 1): 1–154].