, Volume 471, Issue 6, pp 2030-2035
Date: 24 Jan 2013

Outcomes After Volar Plate Fixation of Low-grade Open and Closed Distal Radius Fractures Are Similar

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract

Background

Low-grade (Gustilo and Anderson Type I or II) open distal radius fractures (DRFs) have been treated by volar locking plate fixation. However, it is unclear whether the outcomes after volar locking plate fixation for low-grade open DRFs are comparable to those for closed DRFs.

Questions/purposes

We asked whether low-grade open DRFs had worse DASH scores and higher infection rates than closed DRFs when the DRFs were treated by volar plate fixation.

Methods

Twenty consecutive patients treated by volar locking plate fixation for low-grade open DRFs constituted the open fracture group, and 40 patients were selected from among the total number of patients treated by volar, locking plate fixation for closed DRFs as the closed fracture group. Complications including infection were recorded. Clinical outcomes and radiographic assessments were performed postoperatively at 3 months and 1 year.

Results

At 3 postoperative months, wrist flexion and extension, grip strengths, and DASH scores were better in the closed fracture group; however, no difference was observed postoperatively between the two groups in terms of any functional outcome measure at 1 year. Any of the radiographic parameters were not different between the groups. There were no differences in infection rate and in any other complication rate between the groups.

Conclusions

Although functional outcomes of open DRFs were inferior to those of closed DRFs at 3 months, at 1 year, outcomes of low-grade open DRFs were found to be comparable to those of closed DRFs when volar plate fixation was used.

Level of Evidence

Level III, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Each author certifies that he has no commercial association (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangement, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.
All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA approval status, of any drug or device before clinical use.
Authors certify that our institution has approved the reporting of these cases, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participating in the study was obtained.