Introduction There are various studies that reviewed the effect of cigarette smoking in fracture healing process. Nonunion, delayed union, and residual pain are the significant risk factors associated with smoking and fracture healing. Little has been known about the impact of smoking in distal radius fracture healing. We intend to explore in brief the effect of smoking in distal radius fracture healing and comparing it with nonsmokers having the same fracture fixation and analyze the outcomes with respect to fracture healing and return of function. Materials and Methods Of the total 186 patients, 92 were included in the study with (n = male: 31, female: 61) mean age of 60.2 years. They were divided into two groups: smoking (n = 43) and nonsmoking (n = 49). All had surgical fixation of the distal radius with volar locking plate and started on early mobilization. The range of motion of the wrist, grip, visual analog scale, quick disabilities of the arm and shoulder and hand score, Mayo wrist score, and bone healing period were noted between these two groups and compared with statistical analysis. Results The mean follow-up period was 8.7 months. There was a significant association of young age and male patients having distal radius fractures in the smoking group (p < 0.05). All fractures healed well in both groups without complications. There was no significant difference between these two groups in terms of range of motion, grasp, bone healing period, and functional outcomes. Conclusion Despite the well-known fact that, smoking has negative implications in the fracture healing process, we found group of patients (smoking and nonsmoking) with distal radius fractures treated by volar locking plates healed well with good radiological union and excellent functional outcome There is no significant influence of smoking in distal radius fracture fixation.

Background: The treatment strategy for distal radius fractures accompanied by volar lunate facet fragment is controversial. In most cases, only the bone fragment size was discussed and a plate for distal placement is selected due to the accompanying volar lunate facet fragment regardless of the direction of bone fragment displacement. In this study, we divided distal radius fractures accompanied by volar lunate facet fragment into dorsal and volar displaced fractures, and treated these surgically based on different treatment strategies. Methods: The subjects were 25 patients with distal radius fractures accompanied by volar lunate facet fragment treated by reduction and fixation using a volar locking plate (VLP) (male: 14, female: 11, mean age: 57.8 years old). A proximal VLP (PVLP) was selected for 13 dorsal displaced fractures and a distal VLP (DVLP) was selected for 12 volar displaced fractures. The range of motion, VAS, Q-DASH, and Mayo score were evaluated at 12 months after surgery, and compared. Results: No significant difference due to the difference in the direction of displacement was noted in the range of motion, VAS, Q-DASH, or Mayo score at 12 months after surgery and there were no perioperative complications. In addition, no re-displacement of volar lunate facet fragment was noted after surgery in any patient and bone fusion was observed. Conclusions: Reduction and fixation with a PVLP are possible even for dorsal displaced distal radius fractures accompanied by volar lunate facet fragment. For the volar displaced distal radius fractures, a favorable postoperative outcome is possible by applying a DVLP to the distal ulnar.

No abstract

Background: Postoperative evaluation of wrist joint trauma is divided into patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician-reported outcomes (CROs). We investigated the association of the Q-DASH score as the postoperative PROs and the Mayo wrist score as the postoperative CROs with clinical evaluation in patients with distal radius fractures surgically treated using a volar locking plate (VLP). Moreover, whether PROs and CROs are correlated to the clinical evaluation was investigated. Methods: The subjects were 109 patients surgically treated for distal radius fractures at our hospital between June 2013 and May 2017. Forty-one patients were male, 68 patients were female, and the mean age was 61.4 (19–86) years old. The fracture type was AO classification A type in 30 patients (A2: 25, A3: 5), B type in 5 (B2: 1, B3: 4), and C type in 74 (C1: 50, C2: 11, C3: 13). All patients were surgically treated using VLP. The range of motion of the wrist, grip strength the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Q-DASH score (PROs), and the Mayo wrist score (CROs) were investigated. Each evaluation was compared as the clinical outcome between at 3 months after surgery and the final follow-up. In addition, the correlations of the postoperative PROs and CROs with the clinical evaluation were analyzed. Results: Each evaluation was significantly improved compared with that at 3 months after surgery. There was a significant correlation between PROs and CROs at 3 months after surgery and the final follow-up. However, the range of motion of the wrists was not significantly correlated with PROs or CROs at 3 months after surgery or at the final follow-up. Conclusions: On evaluation after surgery for distal radius fractures, PROs and CROs improved early after surgery (3 months after surgery) before the final follow-up, and an inverse correlation was present between these scores.

Introduction: Although many clinical studies about distal radius fracture (DRF) accompanied by volar lunate facet fragments (VLFF) have recently been reported, none focus on the direction of displacement of distal fragments. Many previous cases with difficulty in treating DRF with VLFF were volar-displaced fractures. Thus, the postoperative risk for re-displacement is different between volar- and dorsal-displaced fractures with VLFF. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of dorsal-displaced fractures treated using proximal volar locking plates (PVLP) between those with VLFF and those without, in order to reconsider the indications of distal volar locking plates (DVLP) and investigate the possibility of treating dorsal-displaced DRF with VLFF using PVLP. Methods: The subjects were 122 patients with dorsal-displaced DRFs treated using PVLP (42 males and 80 females, mean age: 59.2 years old). The patients were divided into 13 patients with VLFF group and 109 patients without VLFF group, and the clinical outcomes at 12 months after surgery were compared. Results: No significant difference was noted on any evaluation between the groups. In addition, no postoperative re-displacement of VLFF was observed and bone union was confirmed. Furthermore, no osteoarthritic change was noted in all patients. Conclusions: We confirmed that surgical treatment for dorsal-displaced DRF using PVLP is possible even in cases of DRF with VLFF. In addition, DVLP is an implant with a high complication risk; therefore, it may be necessary to reconsider the use of DVLP for dorsal-displaced DRF with VLFF treatable by PVLP.