ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Poor fracture alignment equals poor outcome? Analysis of conservatively managed distal radius fractures.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of modified Henry approach with preservation of Flexor Carpi Radialis Tendon Sheath on wrist function in the treatment of distal radius fractures.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Second Metacarpal Index as a Predictor of Secondary Displacement in Conservatively Treated Distal Radius Fractures.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe NOM (non-operative management) of distal radius fractures (DRF) is influenced by various factors. This study seeks to determine whether poor fracture alignment correlates with poor outcome.
methodsOver a period of three years, a study was conducted on conservatively treated DRF involving 127 patients, 104 women (81.9%) and 23 men (18.1%). The average age was 70.6 years (SD ± 19.1; range 21 to 102 years). The patient population is categorized into two groups according to radiological healing outcomes: Group I and Group II. The classification threshold was established as (1) > 10° dorsal/volar tilt of the lateral articular surface angle. (2) Radial tilt of the anteroposterior joint surface angle exceeds 10 degrees. (3) The loss in radial height surpasses 4 mm. Patients were categorized into group II if they met two or more criteria for DRFs, while those with one or fewer criteria were placed in group I.
resultsGroup I exhibited superior mobility across all planes, except in radial abduction. There was also a significant improvement in the clinical scores (QuickDASH, PRWE). Patients over 70 years with anatomically healed distal radius fractures (Group I) had superior range of motion in all planes, with the exception of radial abduction. Group II exhibited significantly higher scores (QuickDASH, PRWE).
conclusionThus, the ultimate goal-both in younger and older patients-should remain to achieve the best possible anatomical reduction. And especially in geriatric people, anatomical repositioning demonstrates enhanced ROM and significantly improvement in patient's satisfaction and daily functioning.
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.