PURPOSE: In complex distal radius fractures (DRF), both direct osteosynthesis (one-stage approach) and temporary external fixation as a bridge to definitive osteosynthesis (two-stage approach) are used. Studies directly comparing these two management options are lacking. This study aims to compare the two procedures with regard to complications, and radiological and functional outcomes. MATERIAL: This prospective observational study included all patients presenting with AO OTA C2 or C3 DRF (1) between January 2011 and January 2018. All patients were categorised into two groups according to received treatment: patients who underwent direct definitive osteosynthesis (Group One Stage) and patients who received an external fixator followed by definitive fixation (Group Two Stage). Primary outcome was the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE) measured at 1 year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included complications, range of motion (ROM), and radiologic parameters (ulnar variance, radial inclination and volar tilt). RESULTS: A total of 187 patients were included in Group One Stage with a mean age of 55.6 years (SD 17.2), of which 67 had a C2 and 120 a C3 fracture. Group Two Stage consisted of 66 patients with a mean age of 53.7 years (SD 20.4 years), of which 6 patients having a C2 and 60 a C3 fracture. There was no significant difference in complications and median PRWE between Group One Stage (12.0, IQR 2.0-20.0) and Group Two Stage (12.2, IQR 5.5-23.4) (p = 0.189), even after correction for differences in baseline characteristics. The ROM and radiologic parameters did not show any significant differences as well. CONCLUSION: No differences were found in clinical, functional, and radiological outcome between one- and two-staged surgical techniques. It may be concluded that a two-stage approach is a viable and safe alternative.
PURPOSE: In complex distal radius fractures (DRF), both direct osteosynthesis (one-stage approach) and temporary external fixation as a bridge to definitive osteosynthesis (two-stage approach) are used. Studies directly comparing these two management options are lacking. This study aims to compare the two procedures with regard to complications, and radiological and functional outcomes. MATERIAL: This prospective observational study included all patients presenting with AO OTA C2 or C3 DRF (1) between January 2011 and January 2018. All patients were categorised into two groups according to received treatment: patients who underwent direct definitive osteosynthesis (Group One Stage) and patients who received an external fixator followed by definitive fixation (Group Two Stage). Primary outcome was the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE) measured at 1 year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included complications, range of motion (ROM), and radiologic parameters (ulnar variance, radial inclination and volar tilt). RESULTS: A total of 187 patients were included in Group One Stage with a mean age of 55.6 years (SD 17.2), of which 67 had a C2 and 120 a C3 fracture. Group Two Stage consisted of 66 patients with a mean age of 53.7 years (SD 20.4 years), of which 6 patients having a C2 and 60 a C3 fracture. There was no significant difference in complications and median PRWE between Group One Stage (12.0, IQR 2.0-20.0) and Group Two Stage (12.2, IQR 5.5-23.4) (p = 0.189), even after correction for differences in baseline characteristics. The ROM and radiologic parameters did not show any significant differences as well. CONCLUSION: No differences were found in clinical, functional, and radiological outcome between one- and two-staged surgical techniques. It may be concluded that a two-stage approach is a viable and safe alternative.
Authors: Brooks Ficke; Erin F Ransom; Matthew C Hess; Andrew S Moon; Haley M McKissack; Ashish Shah; Nileshkumar Chaudhari Journal: Cureus Date: 2018-09-10