ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
External validation and revision of the Lafontaine criteria for unstable distal radius fractures: a retrospective study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Prediction Model for Instability in Adult Distal Radius Fractures: Integrating Post-Reduction and Follow-Up Indicators.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Lafontaine criteria are the most commonly cited criteria for predicting unstable distal radius fractures. However, formal validation of the performance of these criteria remains limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the Lafontaine criteria as a diagnostic prediction rule for distal radius fractures, assess the inter-rater reliability and predictive ability of various parameters for distal radius instability, and develop new criteria for fracture instability using reliable and highly predictive factors.
methodsThis retrospective study included 274 adult patients with acute distal radius fractures treated with closed reduction and immobilisation between January 2019 and December 2022. Patients who underwent immediate surgery, were lost to follow-up before 4 weeks, or had unacceptable alignment after reduction were excluded. The Lafontaine criteria were validated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Criteria with an AUROC > 0.7 were considered acceptable. The criteria were updated using risk factors with stronger associations in the multivariable logistic regression analysis, and the inter-rater reliability of potential predictors was evaluated.
resultsThe median age of the patients was 63 years; 78% were female. Redisplacement occurred in 39% of the cases. The AUROC for the Lafontaine criteria was 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.74). Multivariable logistic regression showed that age 56-74 years (odds ratio [OR] 3.92, 95% CI 1.82-9.16, p < 0.001) age > 74 years (OR 6.34, 95% CI 2.66-16.2, p < 0.001), associated ulna fracture (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.92-2.84, p = 0.10), and initial radial shortening > 3 mm (OR 5.78, 95% CI 3.11-11.2, p < 0.001) were the strongest predictive factors of fracture instability. These predictors demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability, making them suitable for clinical use. Updating the model with these risk factors resulted in an AUROC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.66-0.82).
conclusionsThe performance of the Lafontaine criteria in discriminating unstable distal radius fractures was unacceptable in our study cohort. The updated criteria using age group (< 56 years, 56-74 years, and > 74 years), associated ulnar fractures, and initial radial shortening > 3 mm was found to have moderate discrimination; however, further research is warranted to improve the prediction and measurement reliability of fracture instability.
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.