ReviewCureus2026
Volar Locking Plate Versus External Fixation for Distal Radius Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are among the most common fractures of the upper extremity, and management remains controversial. Both volar locking plate (VLP) and external fixation (EF) are widely used. We aim to compare functional, radiographic, and safety outcomes between VLP and EF in the treatment of DRFs to guide evidence-based management. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase through October 2025 for English-language RCTs comparing VLPs versus EFs in adults with DRFs. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (version 2). Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics, and random-effects models were applied when I² exceeded 50%. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1,023 patients were included. VLP showed better early functional recovery, with significantly lower Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores at month 1 (mean difference (MD) = -7.94, p = 0.009) and month 6 (MD = -4.26, p = 0.010). Grip strength favored VLP at 3 months (MD = 5.35, p = 0.002), 6 months (MD = 5.30, p = 0.002), and 1 year (MD = 2.96, p = 0.005). Wrist range of motion (ROM) also favored VLP across all time points, with improvements in MD of 4.18 degrees over 3 months and 2.73 degrees over 12 months. Radiographic evaluation indicated that VLP achieved greater volar tilt (MD = 1.84, p = 0.02), whereas EF resulted in better ulnar deviation (MD = -0.82, p = 0.001). VLP had a significantly higher risk of reoperation (RR = 2.51, p < 0.0001). VLP fixation provides earlier functional recovery and better wrist mobility than EF in the management of DRFs. EF, however, is associated with a lower overall risk of reoperation. Although long-term functional outcomes and radiographic parameters are comparable between the two techniques, VLP offers clear short-term advantages, supporting its use when early functional restoration is a priority.
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.