A Meta-analysis of Reamed Versus Unreamed Intramedullary Nailing for the Treatment of Closed Tibial Fractures

Controversy exists regarding the clinical outcomes of reamed vs unreamed intramedullary nailing in the treatment of closed tibial fractures. This study assessed the effects of reamed vs unreamed intramedullary nailing for closed tibial fractures. The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for randomized and quasi-randomized controlled clinical trials from January 1980 to June 2012 comparing reamed with unreamed intramedullary nailing for closed tibial fracture in adults. Primary outcomes were nonunion, delayed union, malunion, secondary procedure, failure of implants, compartment syndrome, infection, and knee pain. Eight randomized and 1 quasi-randomized clinical trials (1229 fractures) were included. No statistically significant differences were found between reamed and unreamed nailing groups in delayed union ( P =.20), malunion ( P =.28), infection ( P =.36), compartment syndrome ( P =.36), and knee pain ( P =.93). The unreamed group had a higher rate of fracture nonunion than the reamed group ( P =.02). The subgroup analysis of implant failures (broken screws vs broken nails) indicated that reamed nailing significantly reduced the risk of screw breakage ( P <.001); however, there was no significant difference between reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing in nail breakage ( P =.94). The subgroup analysis of a secondary procedure showed that the reamed intramedullary nailing resulted in significantly lower risks of implant exchange ( P =.01) and dynamization ( P =.04); however, there was no significant difference in bone grafting rate ( P =.73). Evidence comparing reamed with unreamed intramedullary nailing for closed tibial fractures indicates that reamed intramedullary nailing may lead to significantly lower risks of nonunion, screw failure, implant exchange, and dynamization without increasing operative complications.