BACKGROUND: The AO classification has a prognostic value and assists physicians in the planning of fracture management. The X-ray data and the DASH questionnaire are used to assess the outcome of radial fractures. A trend towards open treatment, opposite to closed or percutaneous approaches, has been observed in the past ten years. METHODS: Descriptive study evaluating the functional outcome, with a follow-up from 6-months to one year, using the DASH questionnaire and correlating the outcomes with the treatment used, the type of fracture, the AO and Frykman classifications, and the baseline X-ray parameters. The fracture stability and the treatment of choice were recorded. Patients were grouped according to the treatment used. RESULTS: A DASH score < or = 20 was considered as good, and > 20 as poor. The questionnaires were applied at the 6- and 12-month follow-up visits, the mean score was 14.46. No statistical difference was found between the good or bad outcomes and the type of treatment. A correlation was found between both the type of fracture and the X-ray parameters and the functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the treatment of choice of distal radius fractures, the major goal is to restore the normal X-ray parameters to improve the functional outcome and decrease the complications. No difference was found in the functional outcome among the treatment options used to treat the distal radius fractures. The AO classification is valid as a prognostic indicator and useful to make therapeutic decisions.
BACKGROUND: The AO classification has a prognostic value and assists physicians in the planning of fracture management. The X-ray data and the DASH questionnaire are used to assess the outcome of radial fractures. A trend towards open treatment, opposite to closed or percutaneous approaches, has been observed in the past ten years. METHODS: Descriptive study evaluating the functional outcome, with a follow-up from 6-months to one year, using the DASH questionnaire and correlating the outcomes with the treatment used, the type of fracture, the AO and Frykman classifications, and the baseline X-ray parameters. The fracture stability and the treatment of choice were recorded. Patients were grouped according to the treatment used. RESULTS: A DASH score < or = 20 was considered as good, and > 20 as poor. The questionnaires were applied at the 6- and 12-month follow-up visits, the mean score was 14.46. No statistical difference was found between the good or bad outcomes and the type of treatment. A correlation was found between both the type of fracture and the X-ray parameters and the functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the treatment of choice of distal radius fractures, the major goal is to restore the normal X-ray parameters to improve the functional outcome and decrease the complications. No difference was found in the functional outcome among the treatment options used to treat the distal radius fractures. The AO classification is valid as a prognostic indicator and useful to make therapeutic decisions.