Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis versus conventional open insertion techniques for osteosynthesis

Paul Toogood; Adrian Huang; Karl Siebuhr; Theodore Miclau

doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(18)30297-3

Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis versus conventional open insertion techniques for osteosynthesis

Injury. 2018 Jun:49 Suppl 1:S19-S23. doi: 10.1016/S0020-1383(18)30297-3.

Authors

Paul Toogood¹, Adrian Huang², Karl Siebuhr², Theodore Miclau²

Affiliations

¹ University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Trauma Institute, Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, California, USA. Electronic address: Theodore.Miclau@ucsf.edu.
² University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Trauma Institute, Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, California, USA.

PMID: 29929686
DOI: 10.1016/S0020-1383(18)30297-3

Abstract

Osteosynthesis has evolved theoretically and practically throughout its evolution. Similar to trends in other surgical fields, surgical techniques in fracture fixation, such as minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO), have moved from large dissections to more tissue sparing methods. These plating techniques have been developed for a variety of bones, but more universal clinical adoption will rely upon improved clinical outcomes. The current review will describe minimally invasive techniques, evaluate their rationale, and summarize evidence for their efficacy.

Keywords: Fracture; Minimally invasive; Osteosynthesis; Plate fixation.

Publication types

Comparative Study
Review

MeSH terms

Bone Plates*
Bone Screws
Fracture Fixation, Internal* / instrumentation
Fracture Fixation, Internal* / methods
Fracture Healing / physiology*
Fractures, Bone / surgery*
Humans
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures*
Radiography
Treatment Outcome