Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) improves healing of open tibial fractures treated with intramedullary nail fixation. However, routine use has not occurred. The purposes of the current study were to provide a systematic review of the literature using rhBMP-2 in the treatment of acute open tibial fractures treated with intramedullary nail fixation and to provide a meta-analysis of the randomized, controlled trials. Multiple databases, reference lists of relative articles, and main orthopedic journals were searched. The basic information and major results were compared. Four studies with a total of 609 patients were included.The secondary intervention rate in the standard-of-care (SOC) group was significantly higher than in the rhBMP-2 combined with absorbable collagen sponge (rhBMP-2/ACS) group (27.1% vs 17.5%, respectively; P< .01). The treatment failure rate in the SOC group was significantly higher (34.3% vs. 21.4%, respectively; P< .01). No significant differences were found in infection rate, hardware failure rate, fracture healing rate at 20 weeks, and postoperative pain level. For patients treated with reamed intramedullary nail fixation, only the treatment failure rate in the SOC group was significantly higher (21.5% vs 14.2%, respectively; P=.02); no other significant difference was observed. Adding rhBMP-2 to the treatment of Gustilo-Anderson grade IIIA and B open tibial fractures led to net savings of approximately $6000 per case.Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 added to intramedullary nail fixation of open tibial fractures could reduce the frequency of secondary interventions and total health care costs. For reamed patients, adding rhBMP-2 reduced treatment failure. This analysis supports the clinical efficacy of rhBMP-2/ACS for the treatment of these severe fractures.





Polls results
1

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
50% Article relates to my practice (1/2)
0% Article does not relate to my practice (0/2)
50% Undecided (1/2)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

100% Yes (2/2)
0% No (0/2)
0% Undecided (0/2)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/2)
100% No (2/2)
0% Undecided (0/2)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/2)
0% Level 2 (0/2)
100% Level 3 (2/2)
0% Level 4 (0/2)
0% Level 5 (0/2)