ACE Report Cover
Surgical treatment of distal radius fractures: Internal fixation versus 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
Surgical treatment of distal radius fractures: Internal fixation versus external fixation .

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2013;1(12):143 Acta Orthop. 2013 Jun;84(3):286-91. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2013.792029. Epub 2013 Apr 18
Autores colaboradores

X Xie H Qin L Shen C Zhang

10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of 715 patients with 772 distal radius fractures were evaluated to determine whether surgical treatment using external fixation (EF) or internal fixation (IF) provided better outcomes. Results indicated that patients undergoing IF had significantly better Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) at 12 months compared to the EF group. IF also resulted in superior volar tilt at 12 months, and fewer minor complications compared to EF. Independent analysis of a sub-group of RCTs using volar locking plates indicated a significantly better DASH scores at 3 and 6 months compared to EF, however, this was lost at 12 months. Independent analysis also indicated that volar locking plates provided improved grip strength at 3 months, however this was not maintained at later follow-ups.


Detalles de la financiación de la publicación +
Financiación:
Non-Industry funded
Patrocinador:
The Chinese Postdoctoral Science Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China
Conflicts:
None disclosed

Riesgo de sesgo

9,5/10

Criterios de información

19/20

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

4/4

Analysing Data

4/4

Results

3/4

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?

Distal radius fractures may be surgically treated with either internal fixation (IF) or external fixation (EF). However, there is debate over which of these two treatments provides better outcomes. Although there have been several randomized controlled trials (RCT) conducted comparing the impact of EF and IF on patients with distal radius fractures, results have been mostly inconclusive due to small sample sizes. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the impacts of IF and EF surgical treatments in patients with distal radius fractures.

¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?

Which surgical treatment method - internal or external fixation - provides better outcomes to patients with distal radius fractures after a minimum of one year?

Características del estudio +
Data Source:
An electronic search was conducted using PubMed (1949-2011), Ovid's MEDLINE (1946-2012), MEDLINE In Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (updated to March 12, 2011), Web of Knowledge and EMBASE (1966-2012). The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and review articles were also searched for qualified studies
Index Terms:
The index terms searched were distal radius fractures, Colles fracture, Smith fracture
Study Selection:
To be eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis, studies had to be RCTs of patients with distal radius fractures comparing EF and IF treatment techniques with a follow-up period of at least 12 months. The quality of the included RCTs was rated using the Jadad scale
Data Extraction:
Two investigators independently extracted data from included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus, but if one could not be reached a third investigator made the decision
Data Synthesis:
Weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous variables. For dichotomous variables, relative risk (RR) with CI was used to demonstrate the impact of the treatment. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the chi-square test along with the I-squared statistic. For all pooled analysis the random-effects model was employed, while funnel plots and Egger’s test were utilized to evaluate the possibility of publication bias. Statistical analyses were made using Stata/SE 10.0.
¿Cuáles fueron los hallazgos importantes?
  • 10 RCTs consisting of 715 patients with 772 distal radius fractures were included in this meta-analysis. Bridging fixators with supplementary K-wires were used for EF in 9 studies, while 1 used only bridging fixators. 4 studies used IF with volar locking plates, while the other 6 used non-locking plates.
  • Pooled results of 5 studies measuring the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores in patients found a significant difference favouring the IF group at 12 months following surgery, but not at 3 and 6 months. However, when pooling DASH scores from 4 studies comparing IF with only volar locking plates and EF there was a significant difference between groups, favouring IF with volar locking plates, at 3 months (WMD: 14.3; 95% CI: 7-22; p<0.001) and 6 months (WMD: 6.2; 95% CI: 3-9; p<0.001), but not at 12 months (WMD: 6.1; 95% CI: -0.7 to 13; p=0.08).
  • Grip strength analysis using 6 to 8 studies indicated there was no significant difference between the EF and IF groups at 3, 6, and 12 months. However, 3 studies comparing IF with only volar locking plates and EF indicated that grip strength was significantly better at 3 months with IF, than EF (WMD: -14; 95% CI: -25 to -3; p=0. 01. At 6 and 12 months, there were no significant differences between the groups (p=0.8 for both).
  • Wrist and forearm ROM data from 8 studies was pooled and results indicated that there was a significant difference in supination between groups in favour of IF at 3 months only (WMD: -11; 95% CI: -16 to -7; p<0.001). 3 to 4 studies comparing IF with only volar locking plates and EF indicated that at 3 months extension was significantly better in the IF group at 3 months and that flexion was significantly better in the IF group at 6 months.
  • 2 studies comparing IF with only volar locking plates and EF indicated that volar tilt significantly favoured the IF group at 12 months (WMD: -4.7; 95% CI: -7 to -2; p<0.001), while radial length significantly favoured the EF group at 12 months (WMD: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.1 to 2; p<0.03).
  • 9 studies on patients with 728 fractures indicated that total surgical complication did not differ significantly between the IF and EF groups (RR: 1.2; 95% CI: 0.87-1.7; p=0.3). There were significantly fewer minor complications (included transient extensor tendon irritation, superficial infections, and finger stiffness) in the IF group compared to the EF group (RR: 3.6; 95% CI: 2.0-6.7; p<0.001), but no significant differences existed between the 2 groups in regard to major complications (included loss of reduction, malunion, and nonunion as well as deep infection, neuropathy, and tendon rupture) (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.55-1.2; p=0.02). These findings were reflected when IF with only volar locking plates and EF groups were compared for total complications (p=0.5), minor complications (p=0.06), and major complications (p=0.7).
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?

The results from this meta-analysis exhibited that overall, internal fixation was superior to external fixation in the surgical treatment of distal radius fractures. More specifically, internal fixation produced significantly better DASH scores at 12 months, volar tilt at 12 months, and fewer minor complications in comparison to patients who underwent external fixation. Independent analysis of internal fixation with volar locking plates indicated better DASH scores at 3 and 6 months, and grip strength at 3 months compared to external fixation.

¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?

Overall, it appears surgical treatment using internal fixation for distal radius fractures may potentially lead to superior results at 1 year. Future research should consider comparing different types of internal fixators and further assessments in comparison to external fixation.

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
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. Surgical treatment of distal radius fractures: Internal fixation versus external fixation. OE Journal. 2013;1(12):143. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/surgical-treatment-of-distal-radius-fractures-internal-fixation-versus-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