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
Lingua
Download Download Download
Scaricare
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citare
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Preferiti
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Lingua
Download Download Download
Scaricare
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citare
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Preferiti
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
Autori che hanno contribuito

J Esposito EH Schemitsch M Saccone A Sternheim PR Kuzyk

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.


Dettagli sul finanziamento della pubblicazione +
Finanziamento:
Non-funded
Conflitti:
Royalties

Rischio di pregiudizio

9/10

Criteri di segnalazione

16/20

Indice di fragilità

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?

Sì = 1

Incerto = 0,5

Non rilevante = 0

No = 0

La valutazione dei criteri di segnalazione valuta la trasparenza con cui gli autori riportano le caratteristiche metodologiche e sperimentali dello studio all'interno della pubblicazione. La valutazione è suddivisa in cinque categorie che vengono presentate di seguito.

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

L'Indice di Fragilità è uno strumento che aiuta l'interpretazione dei risultati significativi, fornendo una misura della forza di un risultato. L'Indice di Fragilità rappresenta il numero di eventi consecutivi che devono essere aggiunti a un risultato dicotomico per rendere il risultato non più significativo. Un numero piccolo rappresenta un risultato più debole, mentre un numero grande rappresenta un risultato più forte.

Perché questo studio era necessario ora?

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.

Qual era la domanda di ricerca principale?

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

Caratteristiche dello studio +
Data Source:
An electronic search was conducted in January 2011 using the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE.
Index Terms:
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).
Study Selection:
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.
Data Extraction:
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.
Data Synthesis:
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.
Quali erano i risultati importanti?
  • 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%).
Che cosa devo ricordare di più?

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.

Come influenzerà l'assistenza ai miei pazienti?

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.

DISCLAIMER

Il contenuto di questa pagina è solo a scopo informativo e non intende sostituire la consulenza, la diagnosi o il trattamento medico professionale. Se ha bisogno di cure mediche, si rivolga sempre al suo medico o al pronto soccorso più vicino. Le opinioni, le convinzioni e i punti di vista espressi dalle persone sui contenuti presenti in questa pagina non riflettono le opinioni, le convinzioni e i punti di vista di OrthoEvidence.

0 di 4 articoli mensili GRATUITI sbloccati
Ha raggiunto il suo limite di 4 visualizzazioni di articoli gratuiti questo mese

Accesso a OrthoEvidence a soli 1,99 dollari a settimana.

Rimanga in contatto con le ultime prove. Può disdire in qualsiasi momento.
  • Valutazioni critiche dei più recenti studi randomizzati controllati ad alto impatto e delle revisioni sistematiche in ortopedia.
  • Accesso ai contenuti del podcast OrthoEvidence, tra cui collaborazioni con il Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviste con chirurghi di fama internazionale e tavole rotonde su notizie e argomenti ortopedici.
  • Abbonamento a The Pulse, una newsletter bisettimanale basata sulle evidenze scientifiche, progettata per aiutarla a prendere decisioni cliniche migliori.
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Bentornato!
Ha dimenticato la password?
Inizi la sua prova gratuita oggi stesso!

Il suo account sarà affiliato a
e includerà l'accesso gratuito a OrthoEvidence


O
Ha dimenticato la password?

O
Controlli la sua e-mail

Se esiste un account con l'indirizzo e-mail fornito, le verrà inviata un'e-mail di reimpostazione della password. Se non vede l'e-mail, controlli la cartella spam o posta indesiderata.

Per ulteriore assistenza, contatti il nostro team di supporto.

Effettui il login per abilitare questa funzione

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence attivo. Effettui il login o crei un account di prova GRATUITO.

Tradurre il Rapporto ACE

OrthoEvidence utilizza un servizio di traduzione di terze parti per rendere i contenuti accessibili in più lingue. Si prega di notare che, sebbene venga fatto ogni sforzo per garantire l'accuratezza, le traduzioni potrebbero non essere sempre perfette.

Come citare questo documento 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

Copiare la citazione
Effettui il login per abilitare questa funzione

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence attivo. Effettui il login o crei un account di prova GRATUITO.

Funzionalità per i membri Premium

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence Premium.

Condividi questo articolo ACE Report