Table 3.
Summary of reported studies.(E/G/F/P: Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor).
| S No | Name of Study | Technique | Surgical Time | Blood Loss | Time to Union | Length of Hospital Stay | Functional Scores |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sharma | Antegrade | 80 ± 8.4 | 43 ± 8.6 | 15 ± 2.4 | 5.2 ± 1.4 | Stewart Hundley criteria: E/G/F/P: 8/27/6/2 |
| Retrograde | 95 ± 5.3 | 41 ± 7.1 | 16 ± 4.1 | 6.1 ± 2.8 | |||
| 2 | Scheerlinck | Antegrade | 107.7 ± 44.8 | – | – | – | Median difference In constant score: 17 vs 8; statistically significant |
| Retrograde | 89.2 ± 30.1 | – | – | – | |||
| 3 | Cheng | Antegrade | 51.3 ± 13.3 | 60 ± 20 | 10.8 ± 3.5 | 5.1 ± 2.7 | Mayo score: 96.3 ± 4.4 vs 94.8 ± 5.3; Neer Shoulder score: 90.8 ± 6.5 vs 93.5 ± 4.6 |
| Retrograde | 64.8 ± 12.2 | 54 ± 23 | 12.1 ± 3.9 | 4.5 ± 2.2 | |||
| 4 | Blum | Antegrade | – | – | – | – | Poor shoulder function: 3.7% vs 1.8%; Poor elbow function: None vs 1.8% |
| Retrograde | – | – | – | – | |||
| 5 | Liu | Antegrade | 95 ± 42.5 | – | 14 ± 2.5 | – | Constant score: 94.5 ± 5.2 va 99.5 ± 0.4; Mayo score: 99.5 ± 0.3 vs 99.1 ± 0.4 |
| Retrograde | 100 ± 46.25 | – | 12 ± 2 | – | |||
| 6 | Yin | Antegrade | – | – | 7.42 ± 2 | – | Outcome: E/G/F: 5/2/1 vs 5/2 |
| Retrograde | – | – | – | ||||
| 7 | Reyes | Antegrade | 115 ± 15 | 155 ± 50 | 5.2 ± 4.1 | – | Outcome: E/G/F: 6/2/1 vs 8/3/2 |
| Retrograde | 128 ± 54.5 | 265 ± 125 | 3.6 ± 1.5 | – |