| Literature DB >> 32219543 |
Leena Raudasoja1, Heidi Vastamäki2, Samuli Aspinen3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It still remains controversial how often the once-accepted radiological alignment of an AO type-C distal radius fracture deteriorates after conservative treatment, and to what extent this deterioration is perhaps associated with patient-rated outcome measures (PROms). Thus, we aimed to evaluate this radiological deterioration and its association with mid-term functional follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 66 patients (mean age at fracture 53 years, SD 14.1, range 18-73, female 65%) with 68 C-type distal radius fractures at a mean of 6.7 years (SD 0.5 years, range 5.8-7.7 years) after primary closed reduction and cast immobilization. Radiographs of the wrists were taken and analysed for any radial shortening, dorsal tilt or step-off at the joint surface. Range of motion and grip strength were measured. In addition to the radiological result, primary outcome measures included Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QDash) and Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE).Entities:
Keywords: AO type-C; Conservative treatment; Distal radius fracture; Mid-term outcome; Patient-rated outcome
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32219543 PMCID: PMC7340635 DOI: 10.1007/s00590-020-02659-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol ISSN: 1633-8065
Fig. 1The following radiographic parameters were measured: a radius shortening compared with the ulna (a = mm). b Dorsal angulation (dorsal tilt) of the radius (b = °). c Step-off at joint surface (c = mm)
Fig. 2Mid-term radiological outcome of a 68-year-old woman. a Antero-posterior radiograph showing 4 mm of radial shortening, b lateral view showing 11° of dorsal tilt
Demographic data of patients with conservatively treated C-typea distal radius fractures
| Female | Male | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients (%) | 43 (65%) | 23 (35%) | 66 (68 wrists) |
| Age at injury (mean, SD) | 55.0 (13.4) | 47.8 (15.5) | 52.9 (14.1) |
| Age at follow-up (mean, SD) | 61.4 (13.5) | 55.0 (15.7) | 59.3 (14.2) |
| Dominant hand injury (%) | 23 (52%) | 13 (54%) | 36 (54%) |
aAccording to AO classification Müller et al. [20]
Association between radiological and functional outcome 6.7 years after conservative treatment
| QDash mean (SD) | PRWE mean (SD) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radius shortened ≥ 2 mm, | 12.8 (18.6) | 0.22 | 9.1 (12.7) | 0.40 |
| No shortening or < 2 mm, | 5.5 (6.3) | 5.7 (7.7) | ||
| Dorsal tilt ≥ 10°, | 14.7 (21.1) | 0.241 | 10.1 (12.8) | 0.226 |
| No dorsal tilt or < 10°, | 6.5 (8.8) | 5.8 (9.2) | ||
QDash Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, PRWE Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation
Associations between wrist range of movement and patient-rated outcome after distal radius fracture
| Mean (SD) | QDash (SD) | PRWE (SD) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extension deficit | 27 (39%) | 13° (8.3) | 15.9 (20.2) | 10.9 (14.0) | ||
| No extension deficit | 41 (61%) | 5.0 (6.2) | 0.037 | 5.1 (6.8) | 0.18 | |
| Flexion deficit | 29 (43%) | 10° (6.3) | 13.7 (18.7) | 11.5 (13.6) | ||
| No flexion deficit | 39 (47%) | 6.0 (9.3) | 0.13 | 4.4 (6.3) | 0.005 | |
| Supination deficit | 11 (16%) | 10° (6.3) | 21.7 (25.2) | 18.9 (18.1) | ||
| No supination deficit | 57 (84%) | 6.8 (9.8) | 0.025 | 5.2 (6.6) | 0.007 | |
| Pronation deficit | 3 (4%) | 8° (1.8) | 14.4 (12.9) | 17.8 (13.2) | ||
| No pronation deficit | 65 (96%) | 9.1 (14.6) | 6.9 (10.3) |
N number of cases, QDash Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, PRWE Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation