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
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
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
Autori che hanno contribuito

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.


Dettagli sul finanziamento della pubblicazione +
Finanziamento:
Non-Industry funded
Sponsor:
The Chinese Postdoctoral Science Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China
Conflitti:
None disclosed

Rischio di pregiudizio

9,5/10

Criteri di segnalazione

19/20

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

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

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?

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.

Qual era la domanda di ricerca principale?

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

Caratteristiche dello studio +
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.
Quali erano i risultati importanti?
  • 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).
Che cosa devo ricordare di più?

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.

Come influenzerà l'assistenza ai miei pazienti?

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.

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. 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

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