Objective:To compare the efficacy between intramedullary nailing (IMN) and minimally invasive percutaneous pate oteosynthesis (MIPPO) in the treatment of distal tibial fractures.Methods:China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched by computer for publications on IMN and MIPPO in the treatment of distal tibial fractures published in official journals at home and abroad from January 2010 to August 2020. The studies included were evaluated by 2 authors using the Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. The main extraction indexes were operation time, union time, superficial infection, deep infection, malunion, delayed union or nonunion, and soft tissue irritation. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for data analysis.Results:A total of 7 studies with 653 patients were included, with 325 in the IMN group and 328 in the MIPPO group. Meta analysis showed the following: operation time in the IMN group was significantly shorter than that in the MIPPO group ( MD=-10.75, 95% CI:-19.92~-1.58, P=0.02); superficial infection rate in the IMN group was significantly lower than that in the MIPPO group ( RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.39~0.88, P=0.01); fracture malunion rate in the IMN group was significantly higher than that in the MIPPO group ( RR=1.87, 95% CI: 1.15~3.04, P=0.01). Concerning soft tissue irritation, incidence of anterior knee pain in the IMN group was significantly higher than that in the MIPPO group ( RR=16.98, 95% CI: 3.30~87.34, P=0.0007) while incidence of soft tissue irritation at the fracture site in the IMN group was significantly lower than that in the MIPPO group ( RR=0.13, 95% CI: 0.04~0.40, P=0.0004). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in fracture healing time, deep infection rate, delayed union rate or nonunion rate ( P>0.05). Conclusions:Although both IMN and MIPPO are fine treatments of distal tibial fractures, IMN may be superior in prevention of superficial tissue infection but prone to anterior knee pain while MIPPO may be superior in prevention of malunion but prone to soft tissue irritation at the fracture site. Therefore, MIPPO is suggested in cases with fine pretibial soft tissues while IMN is used to reduce soft tissue infection otherwise.