A Comparative Study between Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Distal Third Tibia Fractures

Background: Despite the array of surgical and non-surgical approaches available for treating distal tibia fractures, managing unstable fractures continues to pose a challenge. This study compares the advantages and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in managing distal third tibia fractures. Methods: Our study focused on 60 cases selected based on age and fracture type. A comparative analysis was performed between two groups, examining factors such as age, gender, AO Foundation and Orthopedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) fracture type, length of hospital stays, surgical duration, complication rates, time to return to daily routines, and adherence to the criteria set by the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS). Results: The blood loss during surgery was significantly more in the ORIF group (142 ± 56.83 ml versus 81.83 ± 37.63 ml) (P < 0.05). The rate of complications was significantly higher in the ORIF group compared to the MIPO group (P < 0.05). Time for back to routines was significantly shorter in the MIPO group (17.63 ± 7.86 weeks versus 22.36 ± 8.81 weeks) (P < 0.05). No significant differences were found in surgery duration, hospitalization time,, time of hospitalization, and AOFAS score between the MIPO and ORIF groups. Conclusion: The optimal method for managing distal tibia fractures remains uncertain due to discrepancies between the outcomes of MIPO and ORIF. We favor MIPO due to its potential for early bone union, quicker return to normal activities, and reduced risk of wound complications.