ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2025
Dorsoradial vs. circular cast for distal radius fractures: a retrospective comparative cohort study.
Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-articular dorsally angulated distal radius fractures (DRFs) are often managed conservatively, yet the optimal cast design remains debated. Dorsoradial (DR) casting leaves the ulnar border open, potentially better accommodating swelling and reducing early cast-related interventions.
methodsA single-center retrospective cohort study included adults with AO-23-A2/A3 DRFs treated between May 2019 and May 2023. Patients received either a DR cast (n=88) or a conventional circular cast (CC) (n=122) for a standard five-week immobilization. Primary outcomes included functional (Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation, PRWE) and clinical (Gartland-Werley, GW) scores, along with radiographic alignment (volar tilt, radial inclination, radial height) at a median follow-up of 118.5 weeks. Secondary outcomes were early cast revisions (release or reinforcement) and complications. Statistical tests included Mann-Whitney U, χ²/Fisher, with Bonferroni-adjusted α=0.017.
resultsBaseline characteristics were similar across groups: mean age 60±11 years, 87% female, comparable AO subtype distribution, and osteoporosis status. Early revision: DR 22.7% vs. CC 36.1% (absolute risk reduction 13% points; odds ratio: 0.51, p=0.038), primarily due to fewer cast releases for swelling/pain (12.5% vs. 32.8%, p=0.001). Function: PRWE scores were 34±18 (DR) vs. 36±18 (CC), p=0.435; GW scores were good-excellent in 79.5% vs. 77.8%, p=0.508. Radiographic outcomes: final volar tilt and radial height were similar (both p>0.08). DR casts better preserved radial inclination (median change 0°, p=0.057) compared to CC casts, which lost 1.3° (-6%, p<0.001); however, the net 1.2° intergroup difference is below the 5° minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and is clinically negligible. No cases of compartment syndrome or acute carpal tunnel occurred.
conclusionDorsoradial casting delivers functional and radiographic outcomes equivalent to circular casting while reducing early revision rates by one-fifth. By lowering unplanned cast adjustments and follow-up visits, the DR technique represents a pragmatic alternative for centers with limited monitoring capacity treating dorsally angulated extra-articular DRFs.
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.