Objectives:To compare operative rates, total hospital charges, and length of stay between different socioeconomic cohorts in treating distal radius fractures (DRFs).Design:A retrospective cohort study.Setting:Large public level 1 trauma center.Patients:A retrospective search of all trauma activations over a 7-year period (2013–2020) yielded 816 adult patients diagnosed with DRF. Patients were separated into cohorts of socioeconomic status based on 2010 US Census data and insurance status.Intervention:DRFs were treated either nonoperatively using closed reduction and splinting or operatively using open reduction and internal fixation, closed reduction percutaneous pinning, or external fixator application.Main Outcome Measurements:Operative rates of DRF, total hospital charges, and length of stay.Results:Patients who were uninsured or in the low-income socioeconomic cohort had no significant difference in operative rates, total hospital costs, or length of stay when compared with their respective insured or standard income groups. Younger patients and those with OTA/AO type C, bilateral, or open DRFs were more likely to undergo operative intervention.Conclusions:This study demonstrates that low socioeconomic status based on annual household income and insurance status was not associated with differences in operative rates on DRFs, length of stay, or total hospital charges. These results suggest that outcome disparities between groups may be caused by postoperative differences rather than treatment decision-making. Although this study investigates access to surgical care at a publicly funded level 1 trauma center, disparities may still exist in other models of care.Level of Evidence:Prognostic Level III.

No abstract

Background: This study aims to investigate the characteristics of concomitant distal radius and scaphoid fractures and determine outcome differences of operative and nonoperative management. Methods: A retrospective search of a level-1 trauma center’s database over a 15-year period (2007-2022) for concomitant distal radius and scaphoid fractures in adult patients was completed. In all, 31 cases were reviewed for mechanism of injury, method of fracture management, distal radius fracture AO Foundation/Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, scaphoid fracture classification, time to radiographic scaphoid union, time to motion, and other demographics. A multivariate statistical analysis was completed comparing outcomes in operative versus conservative management of the scaphoid fracture in these patients. Outcomes were defined as time to radiographic union and time to motion. Results: In all, 22 cases of operative fixation of the scaphoid and 9 cases of nonoperative management of the scaphoid were reviewed. One case of nonunion was identified in the operative group. Operative management of scaphoid fractures resulted in a statistically significant reduction in time to motion (2-week reduction) and time to radiographic union (8-week reduction). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that operative management of scaphoid fractures in the setting of a concomitant distal radius fracture reduces the time to radiographic union and time to clinical motion. This suggests that operative management is ideal in patients who are good candidates for surgery and desire earlier return of motion. However, conservative management should be considered, as nonoperative care showed no statistical difference regarding union rates of scaphoid or distal radius fractures.