ArticleANZ journal of surgery2022
A comparison of early fixation of distal radius fractures versus late corrective osteotomy of distal radius malunion.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFractures of the distal radius are common. Closed reduction and moulded casting is often the first line treatment. Malunion after casting is not uncommon and can lead to discussion on acute surgical fixation versus delayed corrective osteotomy if symptomatic. However, it is unclear if late surgery will provide similar outcomes as early intervention.
methodsWe performed a single centre, age matched, case series comparison study, comparing outcomes of patients who had undergone early fixation (ORIF) versus those who had undergone late corrective osteotomy (CO) following distal radius fracture.
resultsTwenty-six patients were available for review, 13 in each group. Fracture patterns were similar. Reviewing CO versus ORIF; patients achieved a mean DASH; 22 versus 18 (P = 0.355), PRWE; 35 versus 26 (P = 0.237), and VAS 2 versus 2 (P = 0.490). Grip strength was significantly better in those who had undergone ORIF; 2% versus -22% (P ≤ 0.001). Range of motion was generally better with primary fixation but of doubtful clinical importance, reviewing CO versus ORIF; Flexion 46° versus 60° (P = 0.045), extension 55° versus 64° (P = 0.137), pronation 73° versus 85° (P = 0.078), supination 84° versus 84° (P = 0.747), flexion/extension arc 101 versus 124 (P = 0.017), ulnar/radial deviation arc 42° versus 59° (P = 0.01), pronation/supination arc 157° versus 168° (P = 0.118). Ulnar variance was significantly improved in the ORIF group; +0.5 mm versus +2 mm in the CO group (P = 0.023). Radial inclination, radial height and volar tilt were not significantly different between either group.
conclusionOur findings suggest that patient measured outcome of corrective osteotomy is not inferior to early internal fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III (Case Series Comparison).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.