Interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults.

Abstract

BACKGROUND\nFractures of the patella (kneecap) account for around 1% of all human fractures. The treatment of these fractures can be surgical or conservative (such as immobilisation with a cast or brace). There are many different surgical and conservative interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015.\n\n\nOBJECTIVES\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions (surgical and conservative) for treating fractures of the patella in adults.\n\n\nSEARCH METHODS\nWe searched CENTRAL (2020, Issue 1), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, trial registers and references lists of articles to January 2020.\n\n\nSELECTION CRITERIA\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that evaluated any surgical or conservative intervention for treating adults with fractures of the patella. The primary outcomes were patient-rated knee function, knee pain and major adverse outcomes.\n\n\nDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\nAt least two review authors independently selected eligible trials, assessed risk of bias and cross-checked data extraction. Where appropriate, we pooled results of comparable trials.\n\n\nMAIN RESULTS\nWe included 11 small trials involving 564 adults (aged 16 to 76 years) with patella fractures. There were 340 men and 212 women; the gender of 12 participants was not reported. Seven trials were conducted in China and one each in Finland, Mexico,\xa0Pakistan and Turkey. All 11 trials compared different surgical interventions for patella fractures. All trials had design flaws, such as lack of assessor blinding, which put them at high risk of bias, potentially limiting the reliability of their findings. No trial reported on health-related quality of life, return to previous activity or cosmetic appearance. The trials tested one of seven comparisons. In the following, we report those of the main outcomes for which evidence was available for the three most important comparisons. Four trials (174 participants) compared percutaneous osteosynthesis versus open surgery. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the findings of no clinically important difference between the two interventions in patient-rated knee function at 12 months (1 study, 50 participants) or in knee pain at intermediate-term follow-up at eight weeks to three months. Furthermore, very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain whether, compared with open surgery, percutaneous fixation surgery reduces the incidence of major adverse outcomes, such as loss of reduction and hardware complications, or results in better observer-rated knee function scores. Two trials (112 participants) compared cable pin system (open or percutaneous surgery) versus tension band technique. The very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the findings at one year in favour of the cable pin system of slightly better patient-rated knee function, fewer adverse events and slightly better observer-rated measures of knee function. There was very low-quality evidence of little clinically important between-group difference in knee pain at three months. Very low-quality evidence from two small trials (47 participants) means that we are uncertain of the findings of little difference between biodegradable versus metallic implants at two-year follow-up in the numbers of participants with occasional knee pain, incurring adverse events or with reduced knee motion. There was very low-quality and incomplete evidence from single trials for four other comparisons. This means we are uncertain of the results of one trial (28 participants) that compared patellectomy with advancement of vastus medialis obliquus surgery with simple patellectomy; of one quasi-RCT (56 participants) that compared a new intraoperative reduction technique compared with a standard technique; of one quasi-RCT (65 participants) that compared a modified tension band technique versus the conventional AO tension band wiring (TBW) technique; and of one trial (57 participants) that compared adjustable patella claws and absorbable suture versus Kirschner wire tension band.\n\n\nAUTHORS CONCLUSIONS\nThere is very limited evidence from nine RCTs and two quasi-RCTs on the relative effects of different surgical interventions for treating fractures of the patella in adults. There is no evidence from trials evaluating the relative effects of surgical versus conservative treatment or different types of conservative interventions. Given the very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether methods of percutaneous osteosynthesis give better results than conventional open surgery; whether cable pin system (open or percutaneous surgery) gives better results than the tension band technique; and whether biodegradable implants are better than metallic implants for displaced patellar fractures. Further randomised trials are needed, but, to optimise research effort, these should be preceded by research that aims to identify priority questions.