Open reduction and internal fixation compared to closed reduction and external fixation in distal radial fractures

Abramo, Antonio Carlos; Kopylov, Philippe; Geijer, Mats; Tägil, Magnus

doi:10.3109/17453670903171875

Cited by 77 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therapeutic alternatives for distal radius fractures differ greatly throughout the world but mainly include internal (IF) and external (EF) fixation. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in our ten eligible randomised controlled trials [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] was performed with a precontoured, locked radial column or volar plate. However, in some trials, for the best possible stabilisation, some additional augmentation strategies were applied, including the use of additional Kirschner (K) wires, bone graft or bone substitute [2,3,5,6,8,10,11] in the IF group.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in our ten eligible randomised controlled trials [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] was performed with a precontoured, locked radial column or volar plate. However, in some trials, for the best possible stabilisation, some additional augmentation strategies were applied, including the use of additional Kirschner (K) wires, bone graft or bone substitute [2,3,5,6,8,10,11] in the IF group. In the trials studied, EF mainly consisted of bridging external fixator, also with the use of adjunctive K wires, bone graft or bone substitute for the best possible stabilisation [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]; fixators and percutaneous pins were removed between five and six weeks after surgery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in some trials, for the best possible stabilisation, some additional augmentation strategies were applied, including the use of additional Kirschner (K) wires, bone graft or bone substitute [2,3,5,6,8,10,11] in the IF group. In the trials studied, EF mainly consisted of bridging external fixator, also with the use of adjunctive K wires, bone graft or bone substitute for the best possible stabilisation [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]; fixators and percutaneous pins were removed between five and six weeks after surgery. However, whether IF or EF is more appropriate for distal radius fractures is still debated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Internal versus external fixation for unstable distal radius fractures: an up-to-date meta-analysis

Cui

Pan

et al. 2011

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Our aim was to compare the effect of internal vs external fixation for unstable distal radius fractures regarding postoperative complications, clinical results and radiological outcomes. Methods We selected PubMed; Cochrane Library; EMBASE; BIOSIS; Ovid and the relevant English orthopaedic journals and pooled data from ten eligible randomised controlled trials containing 738 patients to conduct a subgroup analysis according to different periods of followup. Our aim was to summarise the best available evidence. Results Results showed that compared with external fixation, internal fixation led to significantly fewer total surgical complications [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.81, P=0.002] and reduced the incidence of pin-track infections (95% CI 0.08-0.46, P=0.0002) after a one year follow-up. For clinical results, grip strength (95% CI 1.59-8.25, P=0.004), supination (95% CI 13.99-48.83, P=0.0004) and pronation (95% CI 5.61-26.09, P=0.002) were superior in the internal fixation group six weeks postoperatively, and the same results were obtained three months postoperatively for grip strength (95% CI 3.21-13.47, P=0.001) and supination (95% CI 3.61-16.01, P=0.002).Meanwhile, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score was superior in the internal fixation group at three months (95% CI −20.62 to −2.07, P=0.02) and after one year (95% CI −14.37 to −2.32, P=0.007) follow-up. Conclusions We suggest that the final results are significant and there is some evidence supporting the use of open reduction and internal fixation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Internal versus external fixation for unstable distal radius fractures: an up-to-date meta-analysis

Cui

Pan

et al. 2011

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There has been good results for dorsal plate has been reported for communited fractures [19] but it carries significant risk of extensor tendon injuries [20] . Low profile fragment specific plates have been introduced recently has been assessed by authors [21,22] . Promising results have been reported for intramedullary fixation devices which uses subchondral screws for locing in the stem [23] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of intraarticular distal end radius fractures by ligamentotaxis: A prospective study

Banapatti¹,

Babaleshwar²,

Nandi³

et al. 2018

Int. J. Orthop. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fractures of distal end radius are common fractures of the upper limb, and constitute 17% of all fractures and 75% of all forearm fractures 1. This fracture shows bimodal distribution of age with the fracture more commonly seen in children and elderly. The objectives of management for a distal end radius fracture should be restoration of range of motion and grip strength while facilitating the patient's early reinstation to normal daily activities and minimizing the chances of post traumatic arthritis. The treating orthopedician has an armada of treatment options to select from to accomplish this. Regardless of these fractures being common, there is no clear consensus on their treatment as there is no clear clinical-based evidence in the literature. For several decades, closed reduction and bridging external fixator for 4-6 weeks has been a well-established treatment of distal end radius fracture7. To reduce fracture fragments and maintain alignment, principle of ligamentotaxis is used by external fixation. This study aims to assess the functional outcome and duration for union in intraarticular distal radius fractures treated with external fixator using ligamentotaxis. The present study was carried out from 1ST December 2015 to 31ST January 2017 at Orthopaedic Department in Shri B. M. Patil Medical College Hospital and Research Center, Vijayapur. During this period 100 patients of intraarticular communited distal end radius fractures were treated surgically. We found 78% Excellent to Good results. 14 patients had Fair results while 8 patients had Poor results. Most common complication seen in our study were Pin Tract Infection (12%) and Restricted Wrist Motion (5%). It was concluded that external fixation offers good mode of treatment in communited fractures as they allow gradual distraction providing better functional and anatomical results in communited intraarticular wrist injuries.

show abstract

“…35 Aside from use in research, or individual surgeons critically auditing their own performance, PROMs are set to play a key role in quality measurement and resource allocation in the future. Health care purchasers are increasingly moving away from buying a procedure or service, and are moving toward Hand 11 (1) paying for a patient outcome. PROMs will have a key role to play in this practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Hand and Wrist Trauma

Dacombe

Amirfeyz

Davis

2016

Hand (New York, N,Y.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important tools for assessing outcomes following injuries to the hand and wrist. Many commonly used PROMs have no evidence of reliability, validity, and responsiveness in a hand and wrist trauma population. This systematic review examines the PROMs used in the assessment of hand and wrist trauma patients, and the evidence for reliability, validity, and responsiveness of each measure in this population. Methods: a systematic review of Pubmed, Medline, and CInaHL searching for randomized controlled trials of patients with traumatic injuries to the hand and wrist was carried out to identify the PROMs. For each identified PROM, evidence of reliability, validity, and responsiveness was identified using a further systematic review of the Pubmed, Medline, CInaHL, and reverse citation trail audit procedure. Results: The PROM used most often was the disabilities of the arm, Shoulder and Hand (daSH) questionnaire; the PatientRated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), Gartland and Werley score, Michigan Hand Outcomes score, Mayo Wrist Score, and Short Form 36 were also commonly used. Only the daSH and PRWE have evidence of reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with traumatic injuries to the hand and wrist; other measures either have incomplete evidence or evidence gathered in a nontraumatic population. Conclusions: The daSH and PRWE both have evidence of reliability, validity, and responsiveness in a hand and wrist trauma population. Other PROMs used to assess hand and wrist trauma patients do not. This should be considered when selecting a PROM for patients with traumatic hand and wrist pathology.

show abstract

Open reduction and internal fixation compared to closed reduction and external fixation in distal radial fractures

Cited by 77 publications

References 25 publications

Internal versus external fixation for unstable distal radius fractures: an up-to-date meta-analysis

Internal versus external fixation for unstable distal radius fractures: an up-to-date meta-analysis

Treatment of intraarticular distal end radius fractures by ligamentotaxis: A prospective study

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Hand and Wrist Trauma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About