Surgical outcomes and complication rates of arthroscopic-assisted fixation versus open fixation for coronoid fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Coronoid fractures often occur with complex elbow dislocations, accounting for 15% of elbow fractures. The effectiveness of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) versus arthroscopic-assisted reduction internal fixation (ARIF) surgeries for coronoid fractures remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of these two surgical approaches in treating varus posteromedial injuries.Methods This study was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO. The primary outcomes assessed in this study were the functional outcomes measured by the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and the complications associated with each surgical approach.Results Analysis of the data from 759 patients included in this study revealed that the mean postoperative MEPS score was higher in the ARIF group compared to the ORIF group (97.5 Vs. 90.7), with the mean improvement in MEPS was 16.6 points (19 for ORIF and 14.3 for ARIF). The complication rate in the ORIF group was 24.6%, while the ARIF group reported a complication rate of 6%.Conclusion This study suggests that ARIF surgery can yield comparable and promising outcomes to ORIF surgery for coronoid fractures.Level of evidence IV