Der Chirurg

, Volume 83, Issue 5, pp 463–471 | Cite as

Winkelstabile Plattenosteosynthese am distalen Radius

Assoziiert eine Osteoporose schlechtere funktionelle Ergebnisse und höhere Komplikationsraten?
  • C. Voigt
  • A. Plesz
  • G. Jensen
  • C. Katthagen
  • H. Lill
Originalien
First Online:

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Diese prospektive Studie erfasst die funktionellen und radiologischen Ergebnisse sowie Komplikationen nach volarer winkelstabiler Plattenosteosynthese am distalen Radius bei älteren Patienten in Abhängigkeit vom Osteoporosegrad. Die Hypothese, dass eine verminderte Knochendichte mit schlechteren Ergebnissen und höheren Komplikationsraten einhergeht, soll geprüft werden.

Patienten und Methoden

Insgesamt 65 konsekutive Patienten mit instabiler distaler Radiusfraktur, AO-23-A2 (n=1), -A3 (n=29), -C1 (n=2), -C2 (n=28), -C3 (n=5), im medianen Alter von 69 (52–86) Jahren wurden 6 Wochen, 3 und 12 Monate postoperativ klinisch und radiologisch nachuntersucht. Alle Patienten erhielten innerhalb von 6 Wochen postoperativ eine Knochendichtemessung am kontralateralen distalen Radius. Danach wurden 3 Gruppen differenziert: Gruppe I (n=27): Osteoporose, Gruppe II (n=27): Osteopenie und Gruppe III (n=11): normale Knochendichte. Neben dem DASH- und QAL-Score wurden das Bewegungsausmaß, die Handkraft sowie die radiologischen Parameter erfasst. In Abhängigkeit vom Osteoporosegrad erfolgte eine detaillierte Komplikationsanalyse.

Ergebnisse

Exemplarisch werden hier die 12-Monats-Ergebnisse im DASH und das Bewegungsausmaß aufgeführt: Der DASH-Score betrug 12 Monate postoperativ: DASHgesamt=6 (0–64) P., DASHGruppe I=7 (0–32,5) P., DASHGruppe II=11 (1–63) P., DASHGruppe III=2 (0–23) P.; nicht signifikant. In allen 3 Gruppen steigerte sich das Bewegungsausmaß (außer die Pronation in Gruppe I und III) von 6 Wochen auf 3 und 12 Monate postoperativ und betrug 12 Monate postoperativ im Gesamtkollektiv median: Dorsalextension 55° (25–75), Palmarflexion 55° (35–75), Ulnarabduktion 35° (20–45), Radialabduktion 20° (5–40), Supination 90° (60–90), Pronation 85° (65–90) ohne signifikanten Unterschied zwischen allen 3 Gruppen. Die gruppenspezifische Komplikationsanalyse der implantat- und knochenqualitätsbedingten Komplikationen ergab 2/27 (7%) sekundäre intraartikuläre Schraubenperforationen in Gruppe I, 1/27 (4%) in Gruppe II und 0/11 in Gruppe III.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Hypothese, dass eine verminderte Knochendichte zu signifikant schlechteren Ergebnissen führt, bestätigte sich nicht. Die Komplikationsanalyse zeigte tendenziell mehr knochenqualitätsbedingte Komplikationen in der Osteoporosegruppe.

Schlüsselwörter

Distale Radiusfraktur Winkelstabile Plattenosteosynthese Osteoporose Osteopenie Komplikationen 

Volar locking plating for distal radial fractures

Is osteoporosis associated with poorer functional results and higher complications rates?

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the functional and radiological results and complication rates after locking plate osteosynthesis of unstable distal radial fractures in elderly patients as a function of the bone mineral density (BMD). The hypothesis that reduced BMD is accompanied by poorer function and a higher rate of complications was investigated.

Patients and Methods

A total of 65 consecutive patients with unstable distal radial fractures, AO 23-A2 (n=1), -A3 (n=29), -C1 (n=2), -C2 (n=28) and -C3 (n=5) were included with a mean age of 69 years (range, 52–86 years). Standardized clinical and radiological follow-up was performed 6 weeks, 3 and 12 months postoperatively. All patients underwent dual x-ray absorptiometry of the contralateral distal radius within 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 groups could be differentiated: group I (n=27) osteoporosis, group II (n=27) osteopenia and group III (n=11) normal BMD. Data on the DASH and QAL scores as well as the range of motion, grip strength and radiological parameters were collected. According to the BMD a detailed analysis of complications was performed.

Results

Exemplary the 12 months results of DASH and the range of motion are shown here: the DASH 12 months postoperatively was DASHtotal=6 (0–64) P, DASHgroup I=7 (0–32.5) P, DASHgroup II=11 (1–63) P, DASHgroup III=2 (0–23) P, no significance. The range of motion increased significantly in all 3 groups (except pronation in groups I and III) from 6 weeks to 3 and 12 months postoperatively and 12 months postoperatively showed means for dorsal extension 55° (25–75), palmar flexion 55° (35–75), ulnar abduction 35° (20–45), radial abduction 20° (5–40), supination 90° (60–90) and pronation 85° (65–90) in the total sample. The comparison of DASH and range of motion was not significantly different at each time of follow-up between all 3 groups. A group-specific analysis of implant and BMD dependent complications showed 2/27 (7%) secondary intra-articular screw perforations in group I, 1/27 (4%) in group II and 0/11 in group III.

Conclusion

The hypothesis that a reduced BMD is accompanied by a poorer function and a higher rate of complications was refuted. Analysis of complications showed a trend to more BMD-dependent complications in the osteoporosis group.

Keywords

Distal radial fracture Locking plate Osteoporosis Osteopenia Complications 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Arora R, Gabl M, Gschwentner M et al (2009) A comparative study of clinical and radiologic outcomes of unstable colles type distal radius fractures in patients older than 70 years: nonoperative treatment versus volar locking plating. J Orthop Trauma 23 (4):237–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arora R, Lutz M, Hennerbichler A et al (2007) Complications following internal fixation of unstable distal radius fracture with a palmar locking-plate. J Orthop Trauma 21 (5):316–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beharrie AW, Beredjiklian PK, Bozentka DJ (2004) Functional Outcome after open reduction and internal fixation for treatment of displaced distal radius fractures in patients over 60 years of age. J Orthop Trauma 18 (10):680–686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonnaire F, Weber A, Bösl O et al (2007) „Cutting out“ bei pertrochantären Frakturen – ein Problem der Osteoporose? Unfallchirurg 110 (5):425–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boszotta H, Helperstorfer W, Sauer G (1991) Zur Operationsindikation bei der distalen Radiusfraktur. Unfallchirurg 94:417–423PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clayton RA, Gaston MS, Ralston SH et al (2009) Association between decreased bone mineral density and severity of distal radial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:613–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delmas PD (2000) Do we need to change the WHO definition of osteoporosis? Osteoporos Int 11 (3):189–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dumont C, Fuchs M, Folwaczny EK et al (2003) Ergebnisse der palmaren Plattenosteosynthese bei instabilen distalen Radiusfrakturen. Chirurg 74:827–833PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drobetz H, Kutscha-Lissberg E (2003) Osteosynthesis of distal radial fractures with a volar locking screw plate system. Int Orthop 27:1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Figl M, Weninger P, Jurkowitsch J et al (2010) Unstable distal radius fractures in the elderly patient – volar fixed-angle plate osteosynthesis prevents secondary loss of reduction. J Trauma 68 (4):992–998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldhahn S, Kralinger F, Rikli D et al (2010) Does osteoporosis increase complication risk in surgical fracture treatment? A protocol combining new endpoints for two prospective multicentre open cohort studies. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldhahn J, Suhm N, Goldhahn S et al (2008) Influence of osteoporosis on fracture fixation – a systematic literature review. Osteoporos Int 19:761–772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hakimi M, Jungbluth P, Windolf J, Wild M (2010) Functional results and complications following locking palmar plating on the distal radius: a retrospective study. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 35 (4):283–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hull P, Baraza N, Whalley H et al (2010) Dorsally displaced fractures of the distal radius – a study of preferred treatment options among UK trauma and orthopaedic surgeons. Hand Surg 15 (3):185–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jupiter JB, Marent-Huber M, LCP Study Group (2010) Operative management of distal radial fractures with 2.4-millimeter locking plates: a multicenter prospective case series – surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92 (Suppl 1):96–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jupiter JB, Marent-Huber M, LCP Study Group (2009) Operative management of distal radial fractures with 2.4-millimeter locking plates. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:55–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C et al (2004) A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 35:375–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim JK, Yun YH, Kim DJ, Yun GU (2010) Comparison of united and nonunited fractures of the ulnar styloid following volar-plate fixation of distal radius fractures. Injury. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Konstantinidis L, Helwig P, Strohm PC et al (2010) Clinical and radiological outcomes after stabilisation of complex intra-articular fractures of the distal radius with the volar 2.4 mm LCP. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130:751–757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lattmann T, Meier C, Dietrich M et al (2010) Results of volar locking plate osteosynthesis for distal radial fractures. J Trauma. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leone J, Bhandari M, Adili A et al (2004) Predictors of early and late instability following conservative treatment of extra-articular distal radius fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124:38–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mallmin H, Ljunghall S, Persson I et al (1993) Fracture of the distal forearm as a forecaster of subsequent hip fracture: a population-based cohort study with 24 years of follow-up. Calcif Tissue Int 52:269–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Müller ME, Allgöwer M, Schneider R, Willenberger H (1992) Manual der Osteosynthese. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oyen J, Brudvik C, Gjesdal CG et al (2011) Osteoporosis as a risk factor for distal radial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:348–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramaswamy R, Evans S, Kosashvili Y (2010) Holding power of variable pitch screws in osteoporotic, osteopenic and normal bone: are all screws created equal? Injury 41 (2):179–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schupp A, Tuttlies C, Möhlig T, Siebert HR (2003) Der distale Speichenbruch. Winkelstabile Osteosynthese mit 2.4 mm Formplatten. Ist der Aufwand gerechtfertigt? Chirurg 74:1009–1017PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Siebert HR, Klonz A (2005) Distale Radiusfraktur. Unfallchirurg 108:135–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Soong M, Leerdam R van, Guitton TG et al (2011) Fracture of the distal radius: risk factors for complications after locked volar plate fixation. J Hand Surg Am 36 (1):3–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thielke KH, Wagner T, Bartsch S, Echtermeyer V (2003) Winkelstabile, volare Plattenosteosynthese komplexer artikulärer Frakturen am distalen Radius – Lösung einer Problemfraktur? Chirurg 74 (11):1057–1063PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vogt MT, Cauley JA, Tomaino MM et al (2002) Distal radius fractures in older women: a 10-year follow-up study of descriptive characteristics and risk factors. The study of osteoporotic fractures. J Am Geriatr Soc 50:97–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Voigt C, Lill H (2006) Welche Vorteile bietet die volare Plattenosteosynthese gegenüber der K-Drahtstabilisierung bei distalen Radiusextensionsfrakturen des alten Menschen? Unfallchirurg 109 (10):845–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilson J, Bonner TJ, Head M et al (2009) Variation in bone mineral density by anatomical site in patients with proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg 91-B:772–775Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Voigt
    • 1
  • A. Plesz
    • 1
  • G. Jensen
    • 1
  • C. Katthagen
    • 1
  • H. Lill
    • 1
  1. 1.Klinik für Unfall- und WiederherstellungschirurgieDiakoniekrankenhaus Friederikenstift gGmbH HannoverHannoverDeutschland

Personalised recommendations