Different methods of external fixation for treating distal radial fractures in adults.
BACKGROUND
Fracture of the distal radius is a common injury. A surgical treatment is external fixation, where metal pins inserted into bone on either side of the fracture are then fixed to an external frame.


OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the evidence from randomised controlled trials comparing different methods of external fixation for distal radial fractures in adults.


METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (June 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and other databases, conference proceedings and reference lists of articles. No language restrictions were applied.


METHODS
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials which compared different methods of external fixation in adults with a distal radial fracture.


METHODS
All review authors independently performed study selection. Two authors independently assessed the included trials and performed data extraction.


RESULTS
Nine small trials involving 510 adults with potentially or evidently unstable fractures, were grouped into five comparisons. The interventional, clinical and methodological heterogeneity of trials precluded data pooling. Only one trial had secure allocation concealment. Two trials comparing a bridging (of the wrist) external fixator versus pins and plaster external fixation found no significant differences in function or deformity. One trial found tendencies for more serious complications but less subsequent discomfort and deformity in the fixator group. Three trials compared non-bridging versus bridging fixation. Of the two trials testing uni-planar non-bridging fixation, one found no significant differences in functional or clinical outcomes; the other found non-bridging fixation significantly improved grip strength, wrist flexion and anatomical outcome. The third trial found no significant findings in favour of multi-planar non-bridging fixation of complex intra-articular fractures. One trial using a bridging external fixator found that deploying an extra external fixator pin to fix the 'floating' distal fragment gave superior functional and anatomical results. One trial found no evidence of differences in clinical outcomes for hydroxyapatite coated pins compared with standard uncoated pins. Two trials compared dynamic versus static external fixation. One trial found no significant effects from early dynamism of an external fixator. The poor quality of the other trial undermines its findings of poorer functional and anatomical outcomes for dynamic fixation.


CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient robust evidence to determine the relative effects of different methods of external fixation. Adequately powered studies could provide better evidence.
Handoll
H H G
HH
Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, c/o University Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Old Dalkeith Road, Little France, Edinburgh, UK, EH16 4SU. h.handoll@ed.ac.uk
Huntley
J S
JS
Madhok
R
R
D000328:Adult; D001858:Bone Nails; D003100:Colles' Fracture / Q000601:surgery; D016267:External Fixators; D005260:Female; D005592:Fracture Fixation / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011885:Radius Fractures / Q000145:classification / Q000601:surgery*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D014954:Wrist Injuries / Q000601:surgery*