Table 1: Characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review
StudyCountrySample size% malesMean age, yrLength of follow-up, mo*InterventionComparison
Chen et al., 201130China605338.715 (10-20)TENSling
COTS10Canada1327833.512‡Open reduction plate fixation§Sling
Figueiredo et al., 200831Brazil507830.224DCP AI plateSling
Judd et al., 200932United States579126.512Modified Hagie pinSling
Koch et al., 200833Germany686635.419.1 (8-26)Intramedullary pinFigure-of-8 bandage
Mirzatolooei et al., 201134Iran608235.612Reconstruction plate on superior surfaceSling
Robinson et al., 20135United Kingdom2008832.412Locking plateCollar and cuff
Smekal et al., 200935Austria688737.724TENSling
Virtanen et al., 201236Finland608736.712Reconstruction plate on anterior surfaceSling
Assobhi et al., 201137Egypt388731.512AI reconstruction plateRTEN
Bi et al., 200838China2017239.810.6 (4-21)Retrograde percutaneous pinKirshner pin
Ferran et al., 201039United Kingdom1338429.212LCDCPRockwood pin
Jiang et al., 201240China646342.524LCPMIPPO
Shen et al., 200841China325644.212Superior reconstruction plate3-dimensional contoured cortical plate
Lubbert et al., 200842Netherlands12084NR12LIPUSPlacebo

Note: AI = antero-inferior surface, DCP AI = dynamic compression plate in antero-inferior position, LCDCP = limited contact dynamic compression plate, LCP = locking compression plate, LIPUS = low-intensity pulsed ultrasound, MIPPO = minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis, NR = not reported, RTEN = retrograde titanium elastic nail, TEN = titanum elastic nail.

*Longest follow-up; reported as mean (range) in 3 studies.30,33,38

†Only enrolled patients with comminuted fractures (3 or more fragments).

‡Data for 2 years in a subsequent publication (Schemitsch et al.43).

§Open reduction and plate fixation (44 patients with limited contact dynamic compression plates; 15 with 3.5-mm reconstruction plates; 4 with precontoured plates, and 4 with other plates.