Abstract
Objectives Two-stage open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and limited internal fixation combined with external fixation (LIFEF) are two widely used methods to treat Pilon injury. However, which method is superior to the other remains controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to quantitatively compare two-stage ORIF and LIFEF and clarify which method is better with respect to postoperative complications in the treatment of tibial Pilon fractures. Methods We conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively compare the postoperative complications between two-stage ORIF and LIFEF. Eight studies involving 360 fractures in 359 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Results The two-stage ORIF group had a significantly lower risk of superficial infection, nonunion, and bone healing problems than the LIFEF group. However, no significant differences in deep infection, delayed union, malunion, arthritis symptoms, or chronic osteomyelitis were found between the two groups. Conclusion Two-stage ORIF was associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications with respect to superficial infection, nonunion, and bone healing problems than LIFEF for tibial Pilon fractures. Level of evidence 2.