Comparative evaluation and ranking of anterior surgical approaches for acetabular fractures: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

To compare the outcome of pararectus, ilioinguinal, and intrapelvic approaches in patients with acetabular fracture and to rank the best, second best, and third best surgical approach.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Epistemonikos, and Embase up to 30 November 2024. A network meta-analyses was conducted to assess the outcomes of pararectus, ilioinguinal, and intrapelvic surgical approaches. Random-effects models with mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for continuous and binary variables, respectively, all with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

A total of 30 primary studies (2,348 patients) were included. There was no statistically significant difference between the pararectus and intrapelvic approach in overall complications (OR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.47 to 1.58). The pararectus approach had 0.51 lower odds for overall complications compared with the ilioinguinal approach (OR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.28 to 0.94). The intrapelvic approach had 0.59 lower odds for overall complications compared with the ilioinguinal approach (OR 0.59, 95 % CI 0.37 to 0.94). There was no statistically significant difference between the pararectus and intrapelvic approach in reduction quality (OR 1.32, 95 % CI 0.89 to 1.95). The pararectus approach had 2.02 higher odds for reduction quality compared with the ilioinguinal approach (OR 2.02, 95 % CI 1.30 to 3.15). The intrapelvic approach had 1.53 higher odds for reduction quality compared with the ilioinguinal approach (OR 1.53, 95 % CI 1.12 to 2.10). There was no statistically significant difference between the pararectus and intrapelvic approach in intraoperative blood loss (MD -31.38, 95 % CI -105.62 to 42.85). The pararectus approach had a 207.35 mL lower intraoperative blood loss compared with the ilioinguinal approach (MD -207.35, 95 % CI -288.52 to -126.18). The intrapelvic approach had a 175.97 mL lower intraoperative blood loss compared with the ilioinguinal approach (MD -175.97, 95 % CI -233.51 to -118.42).

Conclusion

This is the first study to rank the three anterior surgical approaches for acetabular fractures. The findings establish that while the pararectus and intrapelvic approaches are comparable, the ilioinguinal approach ranks third. The superior outcomes of the pararectus and intrapelvic approaches in complications, operative efficiency, and reduction quality highlight their importance in surgical practice.