Purpose: To assess the difference between preformed anatomically shaped osteosynthesis plates and patient-specific implants versus conventional flat plates for the treatment of skeletal fractures in terms of anatomical reduction, operation time, approach, patient outcomes, and complications. Material and Methods: MEDLINE (1950 to February 2023), EMBASE (1966 to February 2023), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to February 2023) databases were searched. Eligible studies were randomised clinical trials, prospective controlled clinical trials, and prospective and retrospective cohort studies (n ≥ 10). Inclusion criteria were studies reporting the outcomes of preformed anatomically shaped osteosynthesis plates and patient-specific implants versus conventional flat plates after treating skeletal fractures. Outcome measures included anatomical reduction, stability, operation time, hospitalisation days, patients’ outcomes, and complications. Two independent reviewers assessed the abstracts and analysed the complete texts and methodologies of the included studies. Results: In total, 21 out of the 5181 primarily selected articles matched the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in operation time in favour of the preformed anatomical plates and patient-specific implants versus conventional plates. Significant differences in operation time were found for the orbital (95% CI: −50.70–7.49, p = 0.008), upper limb (95% CI: −17.91–6.13, p < 0.0001), and lower limb extremity groups (95% CI: −20.40–15.11, p < 0.00001). The mean difference in the rate of anatomical reduction in the lower limb extremity group (95% CI: 1.04–7.62, p = 0.04) was also in favour of using preformed anatomical plates and patient-specific implants versus conventional plates. Conclusions: This systematic review showed a significant mean difference in surgery time favouring the use of preformed anatomical plates and patient-specific implants for orbital, upper, and lower limb extremity fractures. Additionally, preformed anatomical plates and patient-specific implants in the lower limb group result in a significantly higher rate of anatomical reduction versus conventional flat plates.

A major controversy in maxillofacial surgery practice is the management of mandibular condylar fractures (CFs). The debate revolves around open versus closed treatment, rather than identifying clear indications whereby open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is the most viable treatment modality. Opinions regarding precise indications for ORIF remain unclear and non-uniform. We aimed to refocus the debate regarding the optimal treatment for CFs by identifying the recent indications for ORIF in the literature and assessing the quality of the existing evidence for each indication. This systematic review searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible studies. The included studies consisted of articles from the past 15 years involving patients with any type of CF who underwent ORIF based on specified indications. From 4711 papers, 100 studies were included. In these, 121 indications were identified. The most cited indications for ORIF were those proposed by Zide and Kent, namely displacement/angulation ≥10° and ramus height shortening of ≥2 mm. Evidence supporting these indications is weak, relying mainly on expert opinion rather than robust data, with a focus on treatment comparisons. Clear, evidence-based cutoffs regarding when ORIF is the only viable treatment option are needed for a consensus.