Operative vs Nonoperative Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures in Adults

Abstract

IMPORTANCENo consensus has been reached to date regarding the optimal treatment for distal radius fractures. The international rate of operative treatment has been increasing, despite higher costs and limited functional outcome evidence to support this shift. OBJECTIVESTo compare functional, clinical, and radiologic outcomes after operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures in adults. DATA SOURCES The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases were searched from inception to June 15, 2019, for studies comparing operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting on the following: acute distal radius fracture with operative treatment (internal or external fixation) vs nonoperative treatment (cast immobilization, splinting, or bracing); patients 18 years or older; and functional outcome. Studies in a language other than English or reporting treatment for refracture were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data extraction was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Effect estimates were pooled using random-effects models and presented as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Data were analyzed in September 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome measures included medium-term functional outcome measured with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) and the overall complication rate after operative and nonoperative treatment.RESULTS A total of 23 unique studies were included, consisting of 8 RCTs and 15 observational studies, that described 2254 unique patients. Among the studies that presented sex data, 1769 patients were women [80.6%]. Overall weighted mean age was 67 [range, 22-90] years). The RCTs included 656 patients (29.1%); observational studies, 1598 patients (70.9%). The overall pooled effect estimates the showed a significant improvement in medium-term (Յ1 year) DASH score after operative treatment compared with nonoperative treatment (MD,]; P = .005; I 2 = 84%). No difference in complication rate was observed (RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]; P = .87; I 2 = 62%). A significant improvement in grip strength was noted after operative treatment, measured in kilograms (MD, 2.73 [95% CI,]; P = .04; I 2 = 79%) and as a percentage of the unaffected side (MD, 8.21 [95% CI,]; P = .007; I 2 = 76%). No improvement in mediumterm DASH score was found in the subgroup of studies that only included patients 60 years or older (MD, −0.98 [95% CI, −3.52 to 1.57]; P = .45; I 2 = 34%]), compared with a larger improvement in (continued)

No benefit for elbow blocking on conservative treatment of distal radius fractures: A 6-month randomized controlled trial

“…Consequently, the results of this study aim to improve the clinical condition and general quality of life for patients. Many authors have confirmed the validity and reliability of the DASH questionnaire in assessing function and disability in patients with deviated DRF [ 52 – 56 ]. Arora demonstrated the absence of a relation regarding functional performance and radiographical measures in the elderly [ 57 ].…”

Cement augmentation for trochanteric femur fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and observational studies

“…The present meta-analysis found no difference in weighted effect estimates between randomized clinical trials and observational studies. There is increasing evidence that observational studies yield comparable results as randomized clinical trials in orthopaedic trauma research [20,[31][32][33][34]. The potential for confounding, however, should be deemed low when including observational studies.…”

Plate vs. nail for extra-articular distal tibia fractures: How should we personalize surgical treatment? A meta-analysis of 1332 patients

“…The MI-NORS is considered to be a reliable and validated instrument for assessment of methodological quality of observational cohort studies [14] . RCTs were appraised using the same tool as well in order to measure quality on the same scale as observational studies (supplementary material Table 2) [1][2][3][4][5][6] . The MINORS contains 12 items, in which each item can be scored with ''reported and adequate'' = 2 points, ''reported but inadequate'' = 1 point and ''not reported = 0 points''.…”

“…Recently, evidence is growing that the study population and effect estimates of observational studies tend to be quite similar to that of RCTs. Adding observational data in a meta-analysis increases sample size and might improve generalizability of results [1][2][3][4][5][6] as RCTs frequently have stringent inclusion criteria resulting in a selective study population [7][8][9] .…”