Trevor Jackson1, Ethan Maulsby2, Derek Wilson2, Andy Lalka1, Frank Scott3. 1. Department of Orthopedics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, 13001 East 17th Place, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. 2. School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, 13001 East 17th Place, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. 3. Department of Orthopedics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, 13001 East 17th Place, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. Frank.Scott@CUAnschutz.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Distal radius fractures are extremely common injuries affecting a wide range of patient demographics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of distal radius fractures managed initially with closed reduction and immobilization in either a below elbow volar-dorsal splint versus sugar-tong splint prior to conversion into a short arm cast. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients with distal radius fractures placed in a sugar-tong (n = 45) and volar-dorsal splint (n = 36). Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were evaluated immediately after closed reduction and placement into either a sugar-tong or volar-dorsal splint. The radial inclination, radial length, volar tilt, and intra-articular displacement were measured. RESULTS: The average age was not significantly different between groups (Diff: 1.1 years, P = 0.8766). Initial clinic follow-up radiographs illustrated significantly lower radial inclination in the sugar-tong group than volar-dorsal group (17.1 vs. 19, P = 0.0443). Follow-up mean radial length was not significantly lower in the sugar-tong than volar-dorsal group (8.4 vs. 9.2, P = 0.0858). Palmar tilt and articular step-off was not significantly different between splint types. The loss of reduction was 28.8% for the sugar-tong and 25.0% for the volar-dorsal group (P = 0.696). CONCLUSION: Our results did not demonstrate a significant difference in loss of reduction rates between the two splint groups. There was no significant difference between the sugar-tong and volar-dorsal groups in terms of loss of radial length and volar tilt. Loss of reduction was similar between groups suggesting no advantage of a volar-dorsal splint compared to a sugar-tong splint. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level III.
INTRODUCTION: Distal radius fractures are extremely common injuries affecting a wide range of patient demographics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of distal radius fractures managed initially with closed reduction and immobilization in either a below elbow volar-dorsal splint versus sugar-tong splint prior to conversion into a short arm cast. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients with distal radius fractures placed in a sugar-tong (n = 45) and volar-dorsal splint (n = 36). Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were evaluated immediately after closed reduction and placement into either a sugar-tong or volar-dorsal splint. The radial inclination, radial length, volar tilt, and intra-articular displacement were measured. RESULTS: The average age was not significantly different between groups (Diff: 1.1 years, P = 0.8766). Initial clinic follow-up radiographs illustrated significantly lower radial inclination in the sugar-tong group than volar-dorsal group (17.1 vs. 19, P = 0.0443). Follow-up mean radial length was not significantly lower in the sugar-tong than volar-dorsal group (8.4 vs. 9.2, P = 0.0858). Palmar tilt and articular step-off was not significantly different between splint types. The loss of reduction was 28.8% for the sugar-tong and 25.0% for the volar-dorsal group (P = 0.696). CONCLUSION: Our results did not demonstrate a significant difference in loss of reduction rates between the two splint groups. There was no significant difference between the sugar-tong and volar-dorsal groups in terms of loss of radial length and volar tilt. Loss of reduction was similar between groups suggesting no advantage of a volar-dorsal splint compared to a sugar-tong splint. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level III.
Authors: Eric Grafstein; Rob Stenstrom; Jim Christenson; Grant Innes; Robert MacCormack; Colin Jackson; Keith Stothers; Tom Goetz Journal: CJEM Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.410
Authors: Rohit Arora; Martin Lutz; Christian Deml; Dietmar Krappinger; Luzian Haug; Markus Gabl Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 5.284