A Comparative Evaluation Of The Rate Of Infection In Open Reduction And Internal Fixation Vs Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis In Closed Femur And Tibia Fractures (Code-T0228)

Introduction: The Management Of Closed Femur And Tibia Fractures Commonly Involves Open Reduction And Internal Fixation (ORIF) Or Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis (MIPO). While Both Techniques Offer Effective Fracture Stabilization, Their Impact On Postoperative Infection Rates Remains A Critical Concern. This Study Aims To Compare Infection Rates Between ORIF And MIPO To Determine The Safer Approach In Terms Of Wound Healing.

Objectives: To Assess And Compare The Rate Of Infection, Wound Healing, And Postoperative Complications In Patients Undergoing ORIF Versus MIPO For Closed Femur And Tibia Fractures.

Methods: A Retrospective Study Was Conducted On 32 Patients, With 16 Treated Using ORIF And 16 With MIPO. Postoperative Infection Rates Were Evaluated Using The ASEPSIS Wound Scoring System At Three Time Points—Day 2, Day 6, And Day 12/14. Additional Parameters Analyzed Included Patient Demographics, Mode Of Injury, Fracture Location, Anesthesia Type, And Postoperative Complications.

Results: The ORIF Group Exhibited A Higher Infection Rate (12.5%) Compared To The MIPO Group (6.25%). ASEPSIS Scores At All Time Points Demonstrated Better Wound Healing In The MIPO Group, With Statistically Significant Differences (P < 0.0001). ORIF Was Associated With A Higher Incidence Of Severe Wound Infections, Whereas MIPO Resulted In Improved Aseptic Outcomes And Faster Recovery.

Conclusion: MIPO Is Associated With Lower Infection Rates And Superior Wound Healing Compared To ORIF In Closed Femur And Tibia Fractures. These Findings Suggest That MIPO May Be A Preferable Technique For Reducing Postoperative Complications And Improving Patient Outcomes.

Keywords: Closed Fractures, Femur, Tibia, ORIF, MIPO, Postoperative Infection