Necati Doğan1, Halil Büyükdoğan2, Gürkan Çalışkan2, Yasin Genç2, Adem Şahin2, Cemil Ertürk2. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Atakent Mh, Turgut Özal Bulvari No:46/1, Küçükçekmece, 34303, Istanbul, Turkey. drnecatidogan@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Atakent Mh, Turgut Özal Bulvari No:46/1, Küçükçekmece, 34303, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the radiological and clinical results of VP and EF applications in multi-fragmented radius distal intra-articular fractures (AO type C) in our clinic. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 80 patients who underwent surgery for radius distal fracture (AO type C) between 2014 and 2020. Group 1 comprised patients who were treated with VP, and Group 2 comprised patients who were treated with EF. Radiological evaluation was performed by measuring radial inclination, radial length, volar tilt, intra-articular step-off and ulnar variance by two-way radiography. The clinical findings were evaluated using the Gartland and Werley scoring system, and complications were noted. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, gender, side, fracture subtypes and follow-up time (p > 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in radiological parameters (based on cut-off values) (p > 0.05). The clinical evaluation did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.613). CONCLUSION: EF is as successful as VP in providing radiological cut-off values. EF treatment can be used as an effective and safe alternative method for multi-fragmented radius distal intra-articular fractures.
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the radiological and clinical results of VP and EF applications in multi-fragmented radius distal intra-articular fractures (AO type C) in our clinic. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 80 patients who underwent surgery for radius distal fracture (AO type C) between 2014 and 2020. Group 1 comprised patients who were treated with VP, and Group 2 comprised patients who were treated with EF. Radiological evaluation was performed by measuring radial inclination, radial length, volar tilt, intra-articular step-off and ulnar variance by two-way radiography. The clinical findings were evaluated using the Gartland and Werley scoring system, and complications were noted. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, gender, side, fracture subtypes and follow-up time (p > 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in radiological parameters (based on cut-off values) (p > 0.05). The clinical evaluation did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.613). CONCLUSION: EF is as successful as VP in providing radiological cut-off values. EF treatment can be used as an effective and safe alternative method for multi-fragmented radius distal intra-articular fractures.