ACE Report Cover
ORIF for distal radius fractures may improve function vs. external fixation
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descargar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descargar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
HAND & WRIST
ORIF for distal radius fractures may improve function vs. external fixation .

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2013;1(2):102 Injury. 2013 Jan 5. pii: S0020-1383(12)00536-0. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2012.12.003

In this meta-analysis, 10 randomized controlled trials were examined to determine which treatment for distal radius fractures - external fixation or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using plates - provided better outcomes. Following comparisons of the two treatments, results indicated that ORIF with plate fixation provided slightly better functional results with fewer complications.


Detalles de la financiación de la publicación +
Financiación:
Non-funded
Conflictos:
Royalties

Riesgo de sesgo

9/10

Criterios de información

16/20

Índice de fragilidad

N/A

Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?

Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?

Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?

Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?

Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?

Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?

Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?

Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?

Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?

How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?

Sí = 1

Incierto = 0,5

No relevante = 0

No = 0

La evaluación de los criterios de información evalúa la transparencia con la que los autores informan de las características metodológicas y del ensayo dentro de la publicación. La evaluación se divide en cinco categorías que se presentan a continuación.

4/4

Introduction

4/4

Accessing Data

3/4

Analysing Data

3/4

Results

2/4

Discussion

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

El Índice de Fragilidad es una herramienta que ayuda en la interpretación de hallazgos significativos, proporcionando una medida de fuerza para un resultado. El Índice de Fragilidad representa el número de eventos consecutivos que es necesario añadir a un resultado dicotómico para que el hallazgo deje de ser significativo. Un número pequeño representa un hallazgo más débil y un número grande un hallazgo más fuerte.

¿Por qué se necesitaba ahora este estudio?

The standard treatment for distal radius fractures is closed reduction and external fixation. Lately though, an alternative technique, ORIF using plates, has gained popularity. However, it is still unknown which of the two treatments is better for treating distal radius fractures. Hence, this meta-analysis was aimed to determine which method of treatment was more effective in treating distal radius fractures, in terms of functional and radiographic outcomes.

¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?

From included randomized trials, did ORIF with plate fixation provide better functional and radiographic outcomes than external fixation when treating distal radius fractures?

Características del estudio +
Fuente de datos:
An electronic search was conducted in January 2011 using the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE.
Términos del índice:
The index terms searched were (distal radius or distal radial) and (fracture or fractures) and (external fixation or external fixator) and (internal fixation or internal fixator or plate or plating).
Selección de estudios:
Studies were included if they had the following criteria: use of a random allocation of treatments, use of a treatment arm receiving external fixation, use of a treatment arm receiving ORIF with a plate, and results reporting at least one clinical outcome.
Extracción de datos:
Two investigators independently searched and reviewed the studies using the inclusion criteria and independently extracted relevant data for each eligible study. Discrepancies were solved through discussion until a consensus was reached.
Síntesis de datos:
Statistical analysis of the data from the studies used was achieved using RevMan 5.0. The mean difference (mean ORIF with plate fixation minus the mean for external fixation) along with the variance around the mean difference was calculated for wrist range of motion, radiographic parameters, grip strength, and DASH score. The relative risk and 95% C.I. were calculated for overall rate of complications, rates of specific complications, and rates of reoperation. To pool the relative risk estimates, the random-effects model was used. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
¿Cuáles fueron los hallazgos importantes?
  • The type of plate used in the ORIF groups in this meta-analysis was not controlled. Four studies used only volar plates. The other 6 studies used either radial pin-plates, radial column plates, or dorsal Pi Plates.
  • The maximum follow-up time was 12 months in 5 of the studies, 24 in 4 of the studies, and not specified in one of the studies.
  • There was a significant difference in pooled treatment effect for mean difference in DASH scores between the two treatments, favouring the ORIF technique, with minimal heterogeneity (MD: -5.92; 95% CI: -9.89 to -1.96; p=0.003; I squared: 39%).
  • The pooled treatment effect from 3 studies for mean difference in range of motion (flexion, extension, radial and ulnar deviation, and pronation and supination) did not differ significantly between the two treatments techniques (p=0.26-0.98).
  • No significant differences existed between the two treatment methods regarding pooled treatment effect for mean difference in grip strength, but there was moderate heterogeneity (MD: 1.60; 95% CI: --6.59 to 9.80; p=0.70; I squared: 59%).
  • The pooled treatment effect for mean difference in ulnar variance differed significantly between the two treatments techniques, favouring the ORIF method (MD: -0.70; 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.19; p=0.006; I squared: 0%).
  • Using 9 studies, the pooled treatment effect for risk ratios of the rate of complications favoured neither intervention (RR = 0.86; 95%CI 0.57-1.31; p=0.48, I squared: 0%). However, removal of the only study to use dorsal plates exclusively in ORIF procedure indicated that the ORIF technique had significantly lower risk ratios than the external fixation method (RR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47-0.91; p=0.01; I squared: 0%).
  • Based on data from 7 studies, the pooled treatment effect for risk ratios of the rate of infections indicated that the ORIF technique had significantly lower risk ratios than the external fixation method (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.19-0.73; p=0.004; I squared: 0%).
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?

Results displayed that the ORIF with plate fixation technique for treating distal radius fractures provided lower DASH scores, and reduced infection rates than external fixation. Overall though, there was little clinical difference between the two methods.

¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?

There is little clinical difference between outcomes using ORIF with plate fixation and external fixation groups, treatment should be assessed on a case by case basis and should be determined by both treating physician and the patient preference. Extent of mobilization and cost would be factors to take into consideration. Should any RCTs be conducted in the future then larger sample sizes, longer follow-up, and better blinding will be required.

DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDAD

El contenido de esta página tiene únicamente fines informativos y no pretende sustituir el consejo, diagnóstico o tratamiento médico profesional. Si necesita tratamiento médico, busque siempre el consejo de su médico o acuda al servicio de urgencias más cercano. Las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista expresados por las personas sobre el contenido que se encuentra en esta página no reflejan las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista de OrthoEvidence.

0 de 4 artículos mensuales GRATIS desbloqueados
Ha alcanzado su límite de vistas de 4 artículos gratuitos este mes

Acceda a OrtoEvidencia por tan sólo 1,99 $ a la semana.

Manténgase conectado con las últimas pruebas. Cancele en cualquier momento.
  • Valoraciones críticas de los últimos ensayos controlados aleatorizados de gran impacto y revisiones sistemáticas en ortopedia
  • Acceso al contenido del podcast OrthoEvidence, que incluye colaboraciones con el Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, entrevistas con cirujanos reconocidos internacionalmente y mesas redondas sobre noticias y temas ortopédicos
  • Suscripción a The Pulse, un boletín quincenal basado en la evidencia y diseñado para ayudarle a tomar mejores decisiones clínicas
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Bienvenido
¿Ha olvidado su contraseña?
Comience hoy mismo su prueba GRATUITA

Su cuenta estará afiliada a
e incluye acceso gratuito a OrthoEvidence


O
¿Olvidó su contraseña?

O
Compruebe su correo electrónico

Si existe una cuenta con la dirección de correo electrónico proporcionada, se le enviará un correo electrónico para restablecer la contraseña. Si no ve el correo electrónico, compruebe su carpeta de correo no deseado o spam.

Si necesita más ayuda póngase en contacto con nuestro equipo de asistencia.

Inicie sesión para activar esta función

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta activa de OrthoEvidence. Por favor, inicie sesión o cree una cuenta de prueba GRATUITA.

Traducir Informe ACE

OrthoEvidence utiliza un servicio de traducción de terceros para que el contenido sea accesible en varios idiomas. Tenga en cuenta que, aunque se hace todo lo posible para garantizar la exactitud, las traducciones no siempre son perfectas.

Cómo citar esto ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. ORIF for distal radius fractures may improve function vs. external fixation. OE Journal. 2013;1(2):102. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/orif-for-distal-radius-fractures-may-improve-function-vs-external-fixation

Copiar cita
Inicie sesión para activar esta función

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta activa de OrthoEvidence. Por favor, inicie sesión o cree una cuenta de prueba GRATUITA.

Función de miembro Premium

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta Premium de OrthoEvidence.

Compartir ACE Report