Table 1. Approaches used by authors.

Sr no		No of patients	Approach
1	Elmadag et al 33	36	MS
2	Hammad et al 42	21	MS ± LW 14% requires KL
3	Kim et al 34	22	MS – 13 MS + KL – 9 (5 ACPHT, 4 Trans + PW) MS + LW – 2
4	Rocca et al 29	34	MS + LW (Ace approach)
5	Elmadag et al 40	17	MS
6	Shazar et al 38	103	MS – 32 MS + LW – 57 MS + KL – 11 MS + MW + LW - 2 MS + SP - 1
7	Laflamme and Herbert-Davies 37	9	MS + LW
8	Casstevens et al 36	10	MS
9	Liu et al 35	29	MS + LW (Newly modified stoppa approach)
10	Ma et al 39	30	MS – 8 MS + LW – 22
11	Anderson et al 30	17	MS + Post app – excluded from study MS + LW – included Exact no not mentioned
12	Sagi et al 31	57 (7 sklt immature)	MS – 23 MS + LW – 34 (additional SM in 2 pt) (AIP approach)
13	Isaacson et al 41	36	MS + LW – 23 MS + KL – 3
14	Laflamme et al 32	21	MS + LW
15	Cole and Bolhofner 7	55	Only MS – 32 MS + KL – 18 primarily anterior approach) (6 patients required lateral Avila approach in addition to primarily anterior approach)
16	Dailey and Archdeacon 43	112	AIP approach (as described by Sagi HC et al 9 )

Abbreviations: ACPHT, Anterior column posterior hemitransverse fracture; KL, Kocher Langenbech; LW, Lateral window of ilioinguinal; MS, modified Stoppa; MW, Medial window of ilioinguinal; SP, Smith Peterson; Trans + PW, Transverse with posterior wall fracture.