Benjamin Liang1, Jen Ming Lai2, Arul Murugan2, Kin Ghee Chee2, Sreedharan Sechachalam2, Tun-Lin Foo3. 1. ‡ Department of Hand & Reconstructive Microsurgery, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore. 2. * Department of Hand & Reconstructive Microsurgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore. 3. † Department of Hand & Reconstructive Microsurgery, National University Health System, Singapore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concomitant distal radius and distal ulna metaphysis or head fractures (DRUF) are uncommon and acceptable results have been reported from cast immobilisation and internal fixation. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 1094 patients treated for distal radius fracture at our institution in a two year period from 2009 to 2010. 24 patients with concomitant DRUF with were treated by cast immobilisation (group 1, n = 11), internal fixation of both bones (group 2, n = 7), internal fixation of radius alone (group 3, n = 2), and internal fixation of radius with distal ulna resection (group 4, n = 4). Patients treated by surgery underwent intraoperative assessment of distal ulna stability to determine the indication for ulna fixation. Post surgical range of motion, clinical parameters, and functional outcome scores (Gartland-Werley and modified Mayo) were measured. RESULTS: Wrist motion was comparable in each group. Radiographic parameters were better in surgical groups. 23 of 24 patients achieved excellent/good outcomes based on Gartland-Werley scores, while 12 of 24 achieved good modified Mayo wrist score. There was a case of distal ulna non-union in group 1, and another case of delayed distal radius union in group 2. CONCLUSIONS: By evaluating patients' functional requirement, and dynamic fluoroscopy examination, satisfactory outcomes can be achieved for various presentations of DRUF.
BACKGROUND: Concomitant distal radius and distal ulna metaphysis or head fractures (DRUF) are uncommon and acceptable results have been reported from cast immobilisation and internal fixation. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 1094 patients treated for distal radius fracture at our institution in a two year period from 2009 to 2010. 24 patients with concomitant DRUF with were treated by cast immobilisation (group 1, n = 11), internal fixation of both bones (group 2, n = 7), internal fixation of radius alone (group 3, n = 2), and internal fixation of radius with distal ulna resection (group 4, n = 4). Patients treated by surgery underwent intraoperative assessment of distal ulna stability to determine the indication for ulna fixation. Post surgical range of motion, clinical parameters, and functional outcome scores (Gartland-Werley and modified Mayo) were measured. RESULTS: Wrist motion was comparable in each group. Radiographic parameters were better in surgical groups. 23 of 24 patients achieved excellent/good outcomes based on Gartland-Werley scores, while 12 of 24 achieved good modified Mayo wrist score. There was a case of distal ulna non-union in group 1, and another case of delayed distal radius union in group 2. CONCLUSIONS: By evaluating patients' functional requirement, and dynamic fluoroscopy examination, satisfactory outcomes can be achieved for various presentations of DRUF.