Comparison of locked volar plating versus pinning and external fixation in the treatment of unstable intraarticular distal radius fractures.
BACKGROUND
We retrospectively compared the outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with volar locking plate versus standard external fixation and percutaneous pinning in treating similar unstable distal radius fractures with a minimum 2-year follow-up.


METHODS
The ORIF group included 41 patients with an average follow-up of 29 months. The external fixation group comprised 14 patients with an average follow-up of 33 months. Average age at presentation was 45 years in the external fixation group and 48 years in the ORIF group. The male/female ratios were 16:25 among the ORIF group and 6:8 in the external fixation group. The two groups were compared for clinical and functional outcomes measured by the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) score. Pain scores were similar. Radiographic measurements were also evaluated between groups.


RESULTS
Final ranges of motion and grip strengths were similar between the two groups. The mean DASH score of the locked volar plate group was 9 compared to 23 for the external fixation group. Radiographically, volar tilt and radial length were significantly better in the patients treated with ORIF. The ORIF group required less therapy visits. No complications occurred in the locked volar plate group whereas two patients had pin tract infections and one had prolonged finger stiffness in the external fixation group.


CONCLUSIONS
Locked volar plating compares favorably to external fixation and pinning for amenable fracture patterns. Whereas grip and range-of-motion data were similar, DASH scores, frequency of rehabilitation, and some radiographic parameters were superior in patients treated with ORIF.
Rizzo
Marco
M
Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. rizzo.marco@mayo.edu
Katt
Brian A
BA
Carothers
Joshua T
JT
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Apr;(397):403-8
11953634
Orthop Clin North Am. 1984 Apr;15(2):217-36
6728444
J Hand Surg Am. 2006 Mar;31(3):382-6
16516731
Iowa Orthop J. 2004;24:53-9
15296207
J Hand Surg Am. 2002 Mar;27(2):205-15
11901379
J Hand Surg Br. 2003 Oct;28(5):417-21
12954249
Acta Orthop Scand. 1983 Dec;54(6):878-83
6670513
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989 Jan;71(1):68-73
2915010
J Hand Surg Am. 2004 Sep;29(5):815-24
15465230
J Hand Surg Br. 1995 Jun;20(3):365-72
7561414
Int Orthop. 2003;27(1):1-6
12582800
J Hand Surg Am. 2004 Jan;29(1):96-102
14751111
J Hand Surg Am. 2005 Jul;30(4):743-9
16039367
Hand Clin. 1987 Feb;3(1):13-21
3546343
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 Jul;80(4):665-9
9699834
J Hand Surg Am. 2006 Jan;31(1):9-16
16443097
Acta Orthop Scand. 1989 Aug;60(4):387-91
2816313
J Hand Surg Am. 2005 Jul;30(4):764-72
16039370
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 May;78(3):404-9
8636175
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991 Sep;73(8):1241-50
1890127
Acta Orthop Scand. 1990 Dec;61(6):528-30
2281760
Med J Malaysia. 2004 Mar;59(1):15-9
15535330
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Oct;85(10):1956-60
14563804
Zentralbl Chir. 2003 Dec;128(12):997-1002
14750059
J Hand Surg Br. 2000 Dec;25(6):523-7
11106512
Int Orthop. 2001;24(6):358-60
11294431
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Sep;79(9):1290-302
9314391
Acta Orthop Scand. 1989 Dec;60(6):646-50
2624083
Hand Surg. 2003 Jul;8(1):7-15
12923928
J Trauma. 1989 Mar;29(3):326-31
2926845
Orthopedics. 2002 Feb;25(2):125-8
11866144
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979 Sep;61(6A):840-5
479230
Injury. 1989 Jul;20(4):208-10
2592094
J Trauma. 2004 Oct;57(4):845-50
15514540
J Hand Surg Am. 2005 Mar;30(2):289-99
15781351
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Dec;86(12):2621-8
15590845
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Jun;87(6):829-36
15911668
Injury. 2000 Mar;31(2):75-9
10748808