Indian Journal of Research in Homeopathy

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2019  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 31--43

Intra-articular fracture distal end radius external fixation versus locking volar radius plate: A comparative study


S.P.S Gill, Manish Raj, Santosh Singh, Ajay Rajpoot, Ankit Mittal, Nitin Yadav 
 Department of Orthopaedics, UPUMS, Saifai, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Manish Raj
Department of Orthopaedics, UPUMS, Saifai, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh
India

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of the present study was to compare the results obtained by management of intra-articular fractures of distal end radius with closed reduction and external fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation with locking distal radius volar plate. Material and Method: The present study included 60 patients of distal intra-articular radius fractures. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: group I (close reduction and external fixator) and group II (open reduction and internal fixation with volar plating). Periodic clinical examination and x-ray review was carried out to find out functional outcome,range of motion, radiological outcome and complication. Patients were followed up for 6 month. Mean of all the quantitative variables was compared between two groups by unpaired 'T' test. Functional outcome was measured with Quick DASH score. Result: In present study palmer tilt,radial length and radial inclination was significantly greater in volar plate group.ulnar varience was more(-1.18mm) in volar plate group than external fixator group(-1.28mm). The mean QuickDASH scores and time to return to work were similar in patients treated with a locking plate and external fixator (QuickDASH score 2.4 ± 3.0 and 2.9 ± 5.4; 1.9 ± 0.5 months and 2.1 ± 0.7 months, respectively; P > 0.05).In present study Quick DASH score in ext fix group was 9.71 compaired to volar plating group 6.79 at the final followup. Complication rate were higher in close reduction and external fixation group as compared to open reduction and volar plating group. Conclusion: Open reduction and internal fixation with plate fixation had better functional outcome with less complication rate than close reduction and external fixation in management of intra-articular fractures distal end radius.



How to cite this article:
Gill S, Raj M, Singh S, Rajpoot A, Mittal A, Yadav N. Intra-articular fracture distal end radius external fixation versus locking volar radius plate: A comparative study.J Orthop Traumatol Rehabil 2019;11:31-43


How to cite this URL:
Gill S, Raj M, Singh S, Rajpoot A, Mittal A, Yadav N. Intra-articular fracture distal end radius external fixation versus locking volar radius plate: A comparative study. J Orthop Traumatol Rehabil [serial online] 2019 [cited 2022 Jan 16 ];11:31-43
Available from: https://www.jotr.in/text.asp?2019/11/1/31/264712


Full Text



 Introduction



Fractures of the distal end of radius are a heterogeneous group of injuries with different fracture patterns. They were first described by Pouteeau (1783) and Colles (1814).

Fractures of the distal end of radius continue to be the most common skeletal injuries treated by orthopedic surgeons. In fact, these injuries are the most common fractures of the upper extremity and account for approximately 1/6th (17%) of all fractures seen and treated in emergency rooms.[1],[2],[3],[4] Many fractures of the distal aspect of the radius are relatively uncomplicated and are effectively treated by closed reduction (CR) and immobilization in plaster of Paris (POP) cast. However, vast majority of fractures of the distal end of radius are articular injuries that result in disruption of either radiocarpal joint or distal radioulnar joint or both.[5],[6] Intra-articular fractures are inherently unstable, are difficult to reduce anatomically and immobilize in POP cast, and are associated with high rate of complications.[7] For an optimal result, there must be an accurate restoration of skeletal anatomy and supervised rehabilitation by a skilled physiotherapist. Preservation of the articular congruity is the principle prerequisite for successful recovery.[6],[8],[9],[10] The best method of obtaining and maintaining an accurate restoration of articular anatomy, however, remains a topic of considerable controversy.[6]

Colles,[6],[11],[12],[13] in reference to fractures of the distal aspect of the radius, stated, “One consolation only remains, that the limb will at some remote period again enjoy perfect freedom in all its motions, and be completely exempt from pain; the deformity, however, will remain undiminished throughout life.”

Most orthopedic surgeons today would agree that a patient with a malunited fracture of the distal end of the radius who “enjoys perfect freedom in all motions, and is exempt from pain,” is the exception, not the rule. The goal of a treating surgeon should then be to restore the functional anatomy by a method that does not compromise hand function.

With the changing mode of injury (MOI), fracture of the distal end radius occurring in younger patients, increasing functional demands of the patients, better understanding of the fracture pattern, advances in biomechanics of the wrist, and availability of treatment-oriented classification system, it seems we have to look beyond the conventional teaching that they all do well ultimately.

Over the past 20 years, more sophisticated internal techniques and external fixation techniques and devices for the treatment of displaced fractures of the distal end of the radius have been developed.[10],[14],[15] The use of percutaneous pin fixation, Kapandji's intrafocal pinning ext fix devices that permit distraction and palmar translation, low profile internal fixation plates, arthroscopically assisted reduction, and bone grafting techniques including bone-graft substitutes, all have contributed to improved fracture stability and outcome.

The ultimate goal is to restore the anatomical articular congruity of the distal radius and provide the patients with the most functional and comfortable wrist.

Aims and objectives

The main aim of this prospective study is to compare the results obtained by the management of intra-articular fractures of distal end radius by CR with ext fix as compared to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with locking distal radius volar plate in terms of:

Functional outcomeRadiological outcomeRange of movementComplication.

Gartland and Werley (1951)

Group I – Simple Colles fractureGroup 2 – Comminuted Colles fracture, undisplaced intra-articular fragmentGroup 3 – Comminuted Colles fracture, displaced intra-articular fragment.

Melone (1986)

Type 1 – Undisplaced, minimal comminution, stableType 2 – Unstable, displacement of medial complex, moderate-to-severe comminutionType 3 – Displacement of medial complex as a unit plus an anterior spikeType 4 – Wide separation or rotation of the dorsal fragment and palmar fragment rotation.

Fernandez (1987)

Type 1 – Bending: One cortex of the metaphysis fails because of tensile stress; opposite cortex with some comminutionType 2 – Shearing: Fracture of the joint surfaceType 3 – Compression: Fracture of the joint surface with impaction of subchondral and metaphyseal bone, intra-articular comminutionType 4 – Avulsion: Fracture of the ligament attachments of the ulnar and radial styloid process, radiocarpal fracture-dislocationType 5 – Combination: High-velocity injuries.

Cooney (1990) universal classification

Type I – Extra-articular, undisplacedType 2 – Extra-articular, displacedType 3 – Intra-articular, undisplacedType 4 – Intra-articular, displaced.

Modified AO

Type A – Extra-articularType B – Partial articular

B1 – Radial styloid fractureB2 – Dorsal rim fractureB3 – Volar rim fractureB4 – Die-punch fracture

Type C – Complete articular.

Management principles and treatment alternatives

The aim of treatment of a fracture of the distal radius is to achieve and maintain acceptable reduction until healing occurs, followed by rehabilitation of the wrist to restore grip strength and motion and to minimize the risk of secondary osteoarthritis and avoid complications. To achieve this, an orthopedic surgeon has an arsenal of different methods to choose from conservative to surgical. These include:

CR and cast immobilizationCR and percutaneous pinningIntrafocal pinning (Kapandji's method)CR and ext fix with or without K-wireLimited open reductionORIF with or without graftingFragment-specific systems with low profile plates and wiresNewer alternatives are also present such as:

Arthroscopically assisted reductionMicronailCombined internal fixation and ext fixIn situ screw placementCR and percutaneous injection of a paste that forms a carbonated apatiteUse of bone cementLow-intensity pulsed ultrasound.

Criteria for acceptable reduction (Melone) are as follows:

≤2 mm articular incongruity<10° loss of radial inclination<2 mm volar or dorsal translation<10° residual dorsal tilt (between 15° dorsal tilt and 20° volar tilt)<5 mm radial shortening.

Complications

The reported complication rates of distal radius fracture in the literature vary from 6% to 80%.

Immediate complications

Nerve injuries > median nerve > radial nerve > ulnar nerveOpen injuriesSkin injuries – More common in elderly and especially during manipulation due to edematous fragile skinCompartment syndrome – One of the rare complications.

Early complication (<6 weeks)

Cast issues – SwellingDistal radioulnar subluxation or dislocation – Especially in volar or dorsal Barton's fracturesInfectionTendon rupture – Extensor pollicis tendon is the most commonly ruptured incidence in 3% within a mean of 7 weeks.

Late complications (>6 weeks)

Nerve complication and complex regional pain syndromeArthritisNonunion/delayed union-nonunion is rare. 0.2% reported nonunion in Bacon and Kurtzke study of 2000 distal end radiusMalunionTendon complication.

Complications related to external fixation

Pin-tract infection, pin breakage, pin looseningFracture through pin sitesIatrogenic nerve and tendon injuryComplications related to overdistraction.

 Materials and Methods



Source of data

The present study was conducted on patients presented with intra-articular distal end radius fractures, who were either managed with close reduction with external fixation or open reduction and distal radius locking plate was done.

Type of study

This was an interventional prospective randomized control trial study.

Study area

The study was conducted at UPUMS, Saifai, Etawah.

Study period

The study carried out over 1 year from January 2017 to August 2018.

Method of collection of data

Sample size

Cases satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria admitted in the Department of Orthopaedics, UPUMS, Saifai, Etawah, from January 2017 to July 2018 included. We started the study with 61 patients but one was lost during follow-up. Sixty patients studied in which 33 patients were treated with volar plate and 27 patients were treated with ext fix.

The sampling method to be applied for collection of cases consists of:

All patient's attended to by the Department of Orthopaedics at the UPUMS, Saifai, Etawah, who fulfill the inclusion and exclusion criteriaDetailed history-taking and clinical examination as per the pro formaInvestigations after taking written informed consentMode of sustenance of the injurySeverity of the fractureTo assess the outcome of the treatment by follow-up of the patient at 2, 4, and 6 months.

Inclusion criteria

All cases will be selected on the basis of:

Clinical signs and symptomsRadiological findings confirming intra-articular fracture of distal end radius, Frykmann and AO classificationPatients who are medically fit and willing for surgeryPatients between age group of 20–70 years of both sexes.

Exclusion criteria

Patients below 20 and above 70 years of ageDistal end radius fracture associated with other injuries around the wrist jointPathological fracturesDistal end radius fracture associated with neurovascular deficitThere is evidence that the patient will be unable to adhere to trial procedures or complete questionnaires.

Method of randomization

Simple randomization by alternative case selection.

Management protocol

Emergency management

General supportive measuresExamination of associated injuryManagement of wound if any and application of appropriate POP slabLimb elevation and active finger movementsAnalgesics for painX-ray of the affected limb.

Definitive management

Preoperative

Informed consent to be takenClinical examination: Routine protocol for examination of the wrist joint will be followedRadiological examination: X-ray wrist joint anterioposterior (AP) and lateral view for the assessment of:

Radioulnar angulationVolar angulationRadial lengthRadial shiftAssociated ulnar styloid fractureDistal radioulnar joint dissociation

Preoperative investigations: Only routine investigations will be conducted on the patients to assess fitness for anesthesia and surgeryRoutine hematological investigations including haemoglobin level, total leukocyte count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, random blood sugar level, renal function tests, and liver function tests were doneOther investigations: X-ray of the chest, electrocardiography, computed tomographic scan of the wrist where appropriateAnesthesia used: Regional anesthesia (local anesthesia/brachial block) as per requirement.

Operative management

CR and application of ext fix/ORIF with distal radius locking volar plate.

Close reduction external fixation

After brachial plexus block and sterile draping under fluoroscopic guidance, two Schanz pins applied trough second and third metacarpal and two Schanz pins applied over the radius with correct localization by ext fixExt fix fitted in the Schanz pin and then reduction done by applying traction and screw of ext fix tightenAdditional injury such as radial styloid fracture and distal ulno radial joint (DRUJ) injury were fixed with K-wire.

Distal radius locking volar plate

After brachial plexus block, an incision given which is centered longitudinally open flexor carpi radialisPalmer cutaneous branch of median nerve and superficial branch of radial artery identified and protracted and anterior and posterior sheath of flexor carpi radialis (FCR) incised and space of Parona is developed. Pronator quadrates fascia incised at its radial and ulnar border and retracted ulnarly [Figure 1]After manual reduction of fracture segment under fluoroscopic guidance, percutaneous pin applied for the hold of reduction. Then, plate applied and distal and proximal locking done and closure done in layersAdditional injury such as radial styloid fracture and DURJ injury were fixed with K-wire.{Figure 1}

Postoperative

Analgesics and antibioticsPostoperative rehabilitation program.

Follow-up

All the patients were followed up at 2 months, 4 months, and 6 months.

Functional evaluation was done according to QuickDASH (QD) score at 2 months, 4 months, and 6 months.

 QuickDASH



This score rate the abilty of patients to perform different activity and graded them into different category.

A QD score may not be calculated if there is >1 missing item.

2. Range of movement was assessed at 2, 4, and 6 months (palmar flexion, dorsiflexion, ulnar deviation, radial deviation, pronation, and supination)

3. Radiographic evaluation was done at immediate postoperative period and 2, 4, and 6 months for the evaluation of radiographic parameters as mentioned below Volar tilt, radial inclination, ulnar variance, and radial height on each film was measured and recorded in either degrees or millimeters. Methods for making measurement was based on those described by Mann et al.[16] Volar tilt was measured on a lateral radiograph by determining the angle formed between the long axis of the radius and a line drawn along the articular surface.[17],[18] Normal volar tilt was taken as 11° ± 5°.[19] Radial inclination was measured on a posterioanterior (PA) radiograph by determining the angle formed between the long axis of the radius and a line drawn from the distal tip of the radial styloid to the ulnar corner of the lunate fossa.[20] Normal radial inclination was considered as 22° ± 3°. Ulnar variance was measured on a PA radiograph using the method of perpendiculars. The long axis of the radius was identified and a line was drawn perpendicular to this, extending through the ulnar-most corner of the lunate fossa. The distance between this line and the distal-most point of the ulnar dome was recorded as the ulnar variance, where a positive number will denote ulnar positive and a negative number will denote ulnar negative. Normal ulnar variance was taken as 0.7 ± 1.5 mm.[21],[22],[23],[24] Radial height was determined by finding the long axis of the radius and then extending a line perpendicular to it at the tip of the radial styloid on a PA radiograph. The distance between this line and the distal-most point of the ulnar dome was recorded. Normal radial height was taken as 14 ± 1 mm.[25] Accepted functional range for each measurement, excluding radial height, based on functional outcomes from the literature was defined as <20° dorsal angulation, >10° radial inclination, <5 mm ulnar variance, and <2 mm step off.[7],[16],[18],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33]

4. Complication was watched for during the entire study period.

 Result



Our primary outcome measure was QD score, and the secondary outcome measure was range of movements, radiographic outcome, and complicationsMean of all the quantitative variables was compared between two groups by unpaired “t” test.

 Observation



The present study was conducted in the Department of Orthopaedics, UPUMS, Saifai, with the objective to compare the results obtained by management of intra-articular fractures of distal end radius by CR with ext fix as compared to ORIF with locking distal radius volar plate.

[Table 1] show the age distribution. About half of the patients of external fixation group (51.8%) and 30.3% of ORIF group were between 41 and 50 years of age. However, 30% of Ext. fix group and 24.24% of ORIF group were <30 years of age and 39.39% of ORIF group patient were of 30–40 years of age.{Table 1}

[Table 2] show the distribution of gender between the groups. Majority of the patients in both Ext. fix group (85.2%) and ORIF group (72.7%) were males.{Table 2}

[Table 3] show the comparison of side between the groups. 44.4% of Ext. fix group and 48.5% of ORIF group had left-sided fracture. More than half (55.6%) of Ext. fix group and (51.5%) ORIF group had right-sided fracture.{Table 3}

[Table 4] show the comparison of MOI between the groups. 42.4% of ORIF group patient sustained injury through fall on outstretched hand. More than half (63%) of Ext. fix group and (57.6%) ORIF group patients sustained injury through road traffic accident.{Table 4}

[Table 5] show the comparison of AO class between the groups. More than half of the patients in both Ext. fix group (59.3%) and ORIF group (54.5%) were from C2 AO class. However, 25.9% of Ext. fix group and 30.3% of ORIF group were from C1 AO class. 14.8% of Ext. fix group and 15.2% of ORIF group were from C3 AO class.{Table 5}

[Table 6] show the comparison of type of injury between the groups. Among majority of the patients in both Ext. fix group (92.5%) and ORIF group (93.9%) had close injury. 6% of patients treated with ORIF with plate had open injury of Gustilo Anderson Grade 1 and 7.4% of the patients treated with ext fix had open injury of Gustilo Anderson Grade 2.{Table 6}

[Table 7] show the comparison of QD score between the groups across the time periods. QD score was significantly higher in Ext. fix group (22.25) compared to ORIF group (17.90) at 2 months (P = 0.0001), 14.20/12.35 at 4 months (P = 0.0002), and 9.71/6.79 at 6 months (P = 0.0001).{Table 7}

[Table 8] show the comparison of range of motion (ROM) between the groups at 2 months. Palmar flexion was found to be significantly (P = 0.0001) higher in ORIF group (70.15 ± 1.43) than that in Ext. fix group (60.30 ± 4.01) at 2 months [Figure 2]. Dorsiflexion was also found to be significantly (P = 0.0001) higher in ORIF group (62.36 ± 1.90) than that in Ext. fix group (58.19 ± 4.67) at 2 months. Supination (75.15/68.07) and pronation (71.91/66.89) were significantly (P = 0.0001) higher in ORIF group than that in Ext. fix group at 2 months. Radial deviation was significantly (P = 0.003) higher in ORIF group (19.09 ± 1.10) than that in Ext. fix group (18.00 ± 1.64) at 2 months [Figure 3]. Ulnar deviation was found to be significantly (P = 0.0001) higher in ORIF group (20.12 ± 1.31) than that in Ext. fix group (18.30 ± 1.29) at 2 months.{Table 8}{Figure 2}{Figure 3}

[Table 9] show the comparison of ROM between the groups at 4 months. Palmar flexion was found to be significantly (P = 0.0001) higher in ORIF group (74.06 ± 1.87) than that in Ext. fix group (66.07 ± 4.64) at 4 months. Dorsiflexion was also found to be significantly (P = 0.002) higher in ORIF group (65.06 ± 1.76) than that in Ext. fix group (62.00 ± 5.04) at 4 months.{Table 9}

Supination (78.82/70.07) and pronation (76.12/68.07) were significantly (P = 0.0001) higher in ORIF group than that in Ext. fix group at 4 months. Radial deviation was significantly (P = 0.008) higher in ORIF group (20.94 ± 1.70) than that in Ext. fix group (19.30 ± 1.70) at 4 months. Ulnar deviation was found to be significantly (P = 0.0001) higher in ORIF group (22.09 ± 1.18) than that in Ext. fix group (20.78 ± 1.42) at 4 months.

[Table 10] show the comparison of ROM between the groups at 6 months. Palmar flexion was found to be significantly (P = 0.0001) higher in ORIF group (78.00 ± 2.01) than that in Ext. fix group (70.07 ± 4.64) at 6 months. Dorsiflexion was also found to be significantly (P = 0.02) higher in ORIF group (67.00 ± 1.85) than that in Ext. fix group (64.89 ± 4.86) at 6 months. Supination (80.12/71.22) and pronation (77.58/70.30) were significantly (P = 0.0001) higher in ORIF group than that in Ext. fix group at 6 months. Radial deviation was significantly (P = 0.001) higher in ORIF group (21.79 ± 2.11) than that in Ext. fix group (20.04 ± 1.80) at 6 months. Ulnar deviation was found to be significantly (P = 0.0001) higher in ORIF group (23.03 ± 1.07) than that in Ext. fix group (21.81 ± 1.71) at 6 months.{Table 10}

[Table 11] show the comparison of radiological evaluation between the groups at 2 months [Figure 4]. Volvar tilt was found to be significantly (P = 0.02) higher in ORIF group (11.30 ± 1.38) than that in Ext. fix group (10.63 ± 0.56) at 2 months. Radial inclination was also found to be significantly (P = 0.0001) higher in ORIF group (23.03 ± 1.10) than that in Ext. fix group (21.96 ± 0.43) at 2 months [Figure 5]. Radial length was significantly (P = 0.0001) higher in ORIF group (12.81 ± 0.32) than that in Ext. fix group (12.30 ± 0.44) at 2 months. Ulnar variance in Ext. fix group was −1.30 and ORIF group was −1.30 at 2 months, but the result was statistically nonsignificant.{Table 11}{Figure 4}{Figure 5}

[Table 12] show the comparison of radiological evaluation between the groups at 4 months. Volvar tilt was found to be significantly (P = 0.0001) higher in ORIF group (12.06 ± 0.99) than that in Ext. fix group (11.06 ± 0.48) at 4 months. Radial inclination was also found to be significantly (P = 0.001) higher in ORIF group (22.97 ± 1.21) than that in Ext. fix group (22.07 ± 0.47) at 4 months. Radial length was significantly (P = 0.001) higher in ORIF group (12.70 ± 0.35) than that in Ext. fix group (12.24 ± 0.46) at 4 months. Ulnar variance in Ext. fix group was −1.29 and ORIF group was −1.28 at 4 months, but the result was statistically nonsignificant.{Table 12}

[Table 13] show the comparison of radiological evaluation between the groups at 6 months. Volvar tilt was found to be significantly (P = 0.001) higher in ORIF group (12.06 ± 0.89) than that in Ext. fix group (11.37 ± 0.56) at 6 months. Radial inclination was also found to be significantly (P = 0.008) higher in ORIF group (23.36 ± 1.63) than that in Ext. fix group (22.26 ± 1.45) at 6 months. Radial length was significantly (P = 0.005) higher in ORIF group (12.49 ± 0.32) than that in Ext. fix group (12.20 ± 0.46) at 6 months. Ulnar variance in Ext. fix group was −1.28 and ORIF group was −1.18 at 6 months, but the result was statistically nonsignificant.{Table 13}

[Table 14] show the comparison of complications between the groups. Wrist stiffness and pin-site infection were the most common complications in Ext. fix group (11.11%) and wrist stiffness and superficial nerve neuropraxia were the most common complications in ORIF group (9.09%). Hand shoulder syndrome was the least common complication in Ext. fix group (3.7%) and infection and hand shoulder syndrome were the least common complications in ORIF group (6.06%). There was no any complication in 62.96% of Ext. fix group and 69.69% of ORIF group patients.{Table 14}

Statistical analysis

The results are presented in frequencies, percentages, and mean ± standard deviation. The unpaired t-test was used for comparisons. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All the analysis was carried out on IBM SPSS 24.0 version software.

 Discussion



More than 190 years have passed since Colles described the fracture of the distal end of the radius. It is remarkable that this common fracture remains one of the most challenging of the fractures to treat. Although Colles was evidently satisfied with the results of his treatment of distal radial fractures in 1814, more recent authors have drawn attention to the high prevalence of unsatisfactory results and toward the need for reviewing different modalities of treatment available.[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39]

Different types of fractures occur due to the anatomy of the distal radius and the effects of forces in different directions.[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45] It is often not possible to have a successful outcome using the same modality or material for different types of fractures.[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52] While mechanical characteristics are important in adopting a particular modality, the strategic placement of the selected material may in fact be more important than the characteristics of these materials, particularly in intra-articular fractures.[53] The best treatment option for different types of fractures may be determined by comparing different methods.

The use of ext fix and pinning has demonstrated successful outcomes in multiple studies.[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62] Ext fix is versatile in managing both intra- and extra-articular fractures with acceptable functional results. Reasons for using ext fix include the improved reduction by ligamentotaxis and the ability to protect the reduction until healing occurs. The advantages of ext fix are the relative ease of application, minimal surgical exposure, and reduced surgical trauma.[63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68],[69]

Several prospective studies have included ext fix and various methods of fixation.[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78],[79] Hutchinson et al. prospectively evaluated ext fix and pins with plaster techniques.[60] Clinical outcomes were similar between groups. The ext fix group was better at maintaining radial length long term. In our study, we compare external fixation with distal radius locking plate, and we found that there is better maintenance of radial length in distal radius locking plate group than extrenal fixator group. However, it was more costly and sustained a greater number of minor complications including radial neuritis and pin tract infections. In our study, pin tract infection (11.1%) and complication-like stiffness (11.1%) were found more in Ext. fix group than that in ORIF group (9%) while superficial radial neuropraxia was more common in ORIF group (9%) than that in Ext. fix group (7.4%). This suggests that fracture-specific fixation with CR and ext fix is sufficient for certain distal radius fractures.

Complications were high with ext fix in some reports.[80],[81],[82],[83] Anderson et al. noted that 16 of 24 patients treated with ext fix had complications ranging from infection to superficial nerve neuropraxia.[80] Problems encountered included pin tract infections (9 patients), median and superficial radial neuropathies (5 patients), loss of reduction (4 patients), and pin loosening (2 patients). In our study, 10 out of 17 patients in the Ext. fix group develop complication. Problems included in the Ext. fix group were pin-site infection (3 patients), wrist stiffness (3 patients), hand shoulder syndrome (1 patient), and superficial nerve neuropraxia (2 patients). Hutchinson et al. also noted a 45% complication rate of which half were considered serious or major.[60] The most common problems again included pin tract infections, radial neuritis, and complex regional pain syndrome. In the present study, 37.1% of the patients from Ext. fix group and 31.1% of the patients from ORIF group develop complication during treatment.

There are existing studies that compared volar-locking plate fixation with ext fix in distal radius fractures.

Gereli et al.[84] studied 30 patients with intra-articular comminuted distal radius fractures. Sixteen patients underwent open reduction and palmar-locking plate fixation, and 14 patients underwent CR and K-wire augmented ext fix. According to the AO/ASIF classification, there were four C1, 10 C2, and two C3 fractures in the locking plate group and three C1, eight C2, and three C3 fractures in the Ext. fix group. In their study, wrist flexion (P = 0.012) and supination (P = 0.003) at final follow up were significantly greater in the locking plate group. Other ROM parameters were similar in the two groups. In our study, all ROM parameters were significantly greater in locking plate group. On final radiographic measurements, there were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to losses in palmar angulation, radial length, and radial inclination and change in ulnar variance. In our study, palmer tilt, radial length, and radial inclination were significantly greater in volar plate group. Ulnar variance was more (−1.18 mm) in volar plate group than Ext. fix group (−1.28 mm), but data were nonsignificant. The mean QD scores and time to return to work were similar in patients treated with a locking plate and ext fix (QD score 2.4 ± 3.0 and 2.9 ± 5.4; 1.9 ± 0.5 months and 2.1 ± 0.7 months, respectively; P > 0.05). In our study, QD score in Ext. fix group was 9.71 compared to volar plating group (6.79) at the final follow-up. There were no complications in the locking plate group. In our study, 11 out of 33 patients develop complication in volar-plating group and 10 out of 17 patients develop complications. In the Ext. fix group, two patients (14.3%) had regional pain syndrome, three patients (21.4%) had superficial pin and wire tract infections, and pin tract infection was 11.1%. Overall, nine patients (64.3%) expressed dissatisfaction with the ext fix. In our study, 37.1% of patients from Ext. fix group and 31.1% of patients from ORIF group develop complication during the course of treatment.

Shukla et al.[85] reported results of ORIF with locking volar plates at 12-month follow-up on 31 distal radius fractures and found excellent ROM with flexion/extension of 57°/59° and radial/ulnar deviation of 17°/27°, respectively. Overall grip strength measured 79% of the contralateral side. The overall outcome according comparative study of ext fix versus volar-locking plate for displaced intra-articular distal radius fracture reported that after 1 year of surgery, ext fix showed significantly better results than volar-locking plates using the Green and O'Brien scores for ROM (22.0 ± 4.77 vs. 19.89 ± 5.05), grip strength (19.91 ± 5.4 vs. 16.89 ± 4.4), and final outcome (87.36 ± 11.62 vs. 81.55 ± 11.32). In our study, at the end of 6 months, Ext. fix group and volar-plating group, respectively, show flexion of 70.07°/78.0°, extension of 64.89°/67.0°, ulnar deviation of 21.81°/23.03°, radial deviation of 20.04°/21.79°, supination of 71.22°/80.12°, and pronation of 70.3°/77.58° in average. Hence, this result is contrary to the present study.

Williksen et al.[86] in their randomized controlled study of 5-year follow-up on ext fix and adjuvant pins versus volar-locking plate fixation in unstable distal radius fractures reported that the QD score between the Ext. fix group and ORIF group was not statistically significantly different at 5 years. Patients with volar locking plate (VLP) had statistically significant better supination (85° vs. 81°), better radial deviation (18° vs. 16°), and less radial shortening (1 mm vs. 2 mm). For AO/OTA type C2 fractures, the VLP had statistically significant better supination (84° vs78°), flexion (64° vs. 56°), and less ulnar shortening (1 mm vs. 3 mm). The QD score in the C2 subset analysis showed a difference of 10 (VLP 8 vs. EF 18), but this was not statistically significant. In the VLP group, 11 patients (21%) had their plates removed owing to surgically related complications. In this study at the end of 6 months, Ext. fix group and volar-plating group, respectively, show flexion of 70.07°/78.0°, extension of 64.89°/67.0°, ulnar deviation of 21.81°/23.03°, radial deviation of 20.04°/21.79°, supination of 71.22°/80.12°, and pronation of 70.3°/77.58° in average; and radiological outcome in the ext fix/ORIF group was radial inclination of 22.26°/23.36°, radial length of 12.20/12.49 mm, volar tilt of 11.37°/12.06°, and ulnar variance of 1.28/1.18 mm (nonsignificant), and Quick DASH score was 9.71 in Ext. fix group and 6.79 in volar-plating group. Hence, the results are comparable to our study.

Fakoor et al.,[87] in their study, reported that all results including functional score and clinical and radiologic criteria were in favor of the ORIF method while there were less complications with this method. Radiological findings for the ORIF group were radial inclination 19.35°, radial length 10.35 mm, radial tilt 8.92°, and ulnar variance 1.64 mm, while for the CR + EF group, these were 15.13°, 8 mm, 4.78°, and 0.27 mm, respectively. The ROM for ORIF were flexion-extension 137°, radial-ulnar deviation 52°, and supination pronation 14°, while for the CR + EF group, these were 117°, 40°, and 116°, respectively. In our study, radiological outcome in ext fix/ORIF group was radial inclination 22.26°/23.36°, radial length 12.20/12.49 mm, volar tilt 11.37°/12.06°, and ulnar variance 1.28/1.18 mm (nonsignificant), respectively. Moreover, the ROM flexion-extension was 135/145, radial-ulnar deviation 41.8/45.8, and supination/pronation 140.5/157.5 respectively. The rate of complication with the ORIF method was 58% and in the Ext. fix group was 69%, In our study, 37.1% of patients from Ext. fix group and 31.1% of patients from ORIF group develop complication during the course of treatment. The patients in CR + EF had more than the ORIF course of physiotherapy and rehabilitation. Hence, these results are comparable to our study.

Kenan et al.[88] in their study reported that of 72 patients, 36 patients treated with volar plate (Group 1) and 36 patients treated with Ext. fix (Group 2); they found that wrist flexion, extension, and degree of radial and ulnar deviation at final follow-up in Group 1 were significantly higher compared to Group 2 (P < 0.05). When both groups were compared statistically, a significant difference was found in favor of Group 1 in terms of postoperative volar tilt (P = 0.001). In our study, ROM parameter was flexion of 70.07/78.0, extension of 64.89/67.0, ulnar deviation of 21.81/23.03, radial deviation of 20.04/21.79, supination of 71.22/80.12, and pronation of 70.3/77.58 in average, which was significantly higher in volar-plating group. There were no complications in Group 1, whereas superficial pin-wire tract infection was observed in one patient in Group 2. In our study, 10 out of 17 patients in Ext. fix group and 10 out of 33 patients in ORIF group develop complication. Problem included in Ext. fix group/ORIF group were pin-site infection (3 patients), wrist stiffness (3 patients/3 patients), hand shoulder syndrome (1 patient/2 patients), and superficial nerve neuropraxia (2 patients/3 patients). Hence, these results are comparable to our study.

Dash et al.[89] in there research article published in International General of Research in Orthpaedics studied 35 patients aged more than 20 years; 14 were treated with Ext. fix group and 21 were treated with internal fixation. In Group 1, wound infection was seen in two cases; both patients were diabetic and elderly average age of 62 years. There were no implant malposition or failure and tendon rupture. At 6 postoperative month, the average QD score was 12.9 (range, 6.8–18.2). At final follow-up visits, the average ROM of wrist joint included flexion 50° (range, 30°–70°), extension 60° (range, 45°–80°), and pronation-supination 65° (range, 60°–90°) and in Group 2. There pins tract infection in one case. At 6th postoperative month, the average QD score was 18.9 (range, 9.1–29.5). At final follow-up visits, the average ROM of wrist joint included, flexion 45° (range, 30°–70°), extension 62° (range, 35°–75°), and pronation-supination 55° (range, 40°–75°). In our study, ROM parameter was flexion of 70.07°/78.0°, extension of 64.89°/67.0°, ulnar deviation of 21.81°/23.03°, radial deviation of 20.04°/21.79°, supination of 71.22°/80.12°, and pronation of 70.3°/77.58° in average which was significantly higher in volar-plating group and QD score was significantly higher in Ext. fix group (9.71) than volar-plating group (6.79) at final follow-up. Wrist stiffness was more in Ext. fix group. 2 case were reported with pin tract infection in Ext. fix group. In this study, 10 out of 17 patients in Ext. fix group and 10 out of 33 patients in ORIF group develop complication. Problem included in Ext. fix group/ORIF group were pin-site infection (3 patients), wrist stiffness (3 patients/3 patients), hand shoulder syndrome (1 patient/2 patients), and superficial nerve neuropraxia (2 patients/3 patients).

Lee et al.[90] in their retrospective study included 201 distal radius fracture cases. Eighty-five patients in Group 1 were treated with volar or dorsal plate and 116 patients in Group 2 were treated with ext fix with additional fixation devices. Clinical (ROM, Green and O'Brien's score) and radiological outcomes were evaluated. In their study, they found that at the 12-month follow-up, Group 1 and Group 2, respectively, showed flexion of 64.4°/60.5°, extension of 68.3°/66.9°, ulnar deviation of 30.6°/25.5°, radial deviation of 20.8°/18.6°, supination of 76.1°/73.5°, and pronation of 79.4°/75.0° in average. In this study, at the end of 6 months, Ext. fix group and volar--plating group, respectively, show flexion of 70.07°/78.0°, extension of 64.89°/67.0°, ulnar deviation of 21.81°/23.03°, radial deviation of 20.04°/21.79°, supination of 71.22°/80.12°, and pronation of 70.3°/77.58° in average. The mean Green and O'Brien score was 92.2 in Group 1 and 88.6 in Group 2. In this study, we evaluated functional outcome with QD score and score was 9.71/6.79, respectively, in Ext. fix/volar-plating group at the end of 6 months. The radial height of group 1 and Group 2 was 11.6/11.4 mm; radial inclination was 23.2°/22.5°; volar tilt was 11.6°/8.7°; and the ulnar displacement was 1.27/0.93 mm. In this study, radial length of Ext. fix/ORIF group was 12.02/12.49 mm, radial inclination 22.26°/23.36°, volar tilt 11.37°/12.06°, and ulnar variance was 1.28/1.18 mm (nonsignificant), respectively. Hence, these results are comparable in both studies.

While ext fix maintains a significant role in the treatment of distal radius fractures, ORlF with locked volar plating has changed the way many surgeons treat certain types of distal radius fractures. The aim of this study was to compare the results of ext fix and ORIF in treating similar distal radius fracture patterns. As functional outcome, radiological outcome, and ROM were better in patients treated with ORIF with volar plate and complications were less, compared to patients treated with ext fix, which suggests that ORIF with volar plate is better method of treating intra-articular distal radius fracture than ext fix.

 Conclusion



The present study was undertaken to compare the outcome of intra-articular fractures of the distal end of radius treated by CR with ext fix and ORIF with locking distal radius volar plate and the following conclusions were drawn.

The ext fix is simple and inexpensive. It effectively stabilizes fractures and only a short hospital stay is required. Although a relatively longer period of immobilization is required, immobilization of 6–8 weeks is well tolerated and it does affect the final outcome in long-term follow-up. Both its ease of use and successful track record make it an extremely versatile tool for the treatment of these injuries.

The use of locked volar plates in distal radius fractures provides good-to-excellent results and is effective in the correction and maintenance of distal radius anatomy.[91],[92] It avoids bridging the radiocarpal joint and allows for early joint movement, owing to its fixation strength. Close placement to joint interface and screwing capability in different orders are its biomechanical superiorities.

Functional outcome as evaluated by QD score was better in ORIF group. Volar tilt, radial length, and radial inclination were better in patients treated with ORIF; there was no significant difference found in ulnar variance. Range of movement was better in patients treated with ORIF. Complication was less in ORIF group except superficial radial nerve neuropraxia.

The comparison between the results of the functional outcome as evaluated by the QD and the anatomical outcome evaluated as mentioned above confirms, what other studies have previously shown, that the functional result need not mirror the anatomical evaluation. It was found that range of movement radiographic parameters being superior in patients treated with ORIF, complications were less in volar-plating group, overall functional outcome are better in ORIF group which suggests that ORIF with volar plate is better method than ext fix for treating intra-articular fracture distal radius.

Summary

In present study it was found that volar tilt, radial length and radial inclination were better in patient treated with open reduction and internal fixation with volar plate group. However, there was no significant difference found in ulnar varience in two groups. Functional outcome as evaluated by Quick DASH score was better in volar plate group. Complications rate were less in volar plate group as compared to external fixator group. The present study suggests reduction and internal fixation with volar plate was better method than close reduction and external fixation in management of Intra-articular fracture distal radius.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1Ark J, Jupiter JB. The rationale for precise management of distal radius fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 1993;24:205-10.
2Jupiter JB. Current concepts review – Fractures of the distal end of the radius. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:461-9.
3Jakim I, Pieterse HS, Sweet MB. External fixation for intra-articular fractures of the distal radius. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991;73:302-6.
4Nagi ON, Dhillon MS, Aggarwal S, Deogaonkar KJ. External fixators for intraarticular distal radius fractures. Indian J Orthop 2004;38:19-22.
5Melone CP Jr. Articular fractures of the distal radius. Orthop Clin North Am 1984;15:217-36.
6Melone CP Jr. Distal radius fractures: Patterns of articular fragmentation. Orthop Clin North Am 1993;24:239-53.
7Knirk JL, Jupiter JB. Intra-articular fractures of the distal end of the radius in young adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986;68:647-59.
8Colles A. On the fracture of the carpal extremity of the radius. Edinb Med Surg J 1814;10:182-6.
9Simic PM, Weiland AJ. Fractures of the distal aspect of the radius: Changes in treatment over the past two decades. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:552-64.
10Simic PM, Weiland AJ. Fractures of the distal aspect of the radius: Changes in treatment over the past two decades. Instr Course Lect 2003;52:185-95.
11Kapoor H, Agarwal A, Dhaon BK. Displaced intra-articular fractures of distal radius: A comparative evaluation of results following closed reduction, external fixation and open reduction with internal fixation. Injury 2000;31:75-9.
12Arora J, Kapoor H, Malik A, Bansal M. Closed reduction and plaster cast immobilization vs. external fixation in comminuted intra articular fractures of distal radius. Indian J Orthop 2004;38:113-7.
13Rozental TD, Blazar PE, Franko OI, Chacko AT, Earp BE, Day CS, et al. Functional outcomes for unstable distal radial fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation or closed reduction and percutaneous fixation. A prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:1837-46.
14Kumbaraci M, Kucuk L, Karapinar L, Kurt C, Coskunol E. Retrospective comparison of external fixation versus volar locking plate in the treatment of unstable intra-articular distal radius fractures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2014;24:173-8.
15Roh YH, Lee BK, Baek JR, Noh JH, Gong HS, Baek GH. A randomized comparison of volar plate and external fixation for intra-articular distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am 2015;40:34-41.
16Mann FA, Wilson AJ, Gilula LA. Radiographic evaluation of the wrist: What does the hand surgeon want to know? Radiology 1992;184:15-24.
17Kekatpure A, Kale SY, Kekatpure A, Chaudhari PL, Gala R, Tayade A. Comparison of the functional outcome for Joshi external stabilising system fixator versus volar plating in treating closed intra-articular distal end radius fracture. Int J Contemp Med Res 2016;3;2454-7379.
18Altissimi M, Antenucci R, Fiacca C, Mancini GB. Long-term results of conservative treatment of fractures of the distal radius. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986;(206):202-10.
19Medoff RJ. Essential radiographic evaluation for distal radius fractures. Hand Clin 2005;21:279-88.
20Friberg S, Lundström B. Radiographic measurements of the radio-carpal joint in normal adults. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1976;17:249-56.
21Jupiter JB. Fractures of the distal end of the radius. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:461-9.
22Mekhail AO, Ebraheim NA, McCreath WA, Jackson WT, Yeasting RA. Anatomic and X-ray film studies of the distal articular surface of the radius. J Hand Surg Am 1996;21:567-73.
23Steyers CM, Blair WF. Measuring ulnar variance: A comparison of techniques. J Hand Surg Am 1989;14:607-12.
24Jung JM, Baek GH, Kim JH, Lee YH, Chung MS. Changes in ulnar variance in relation to forearm rotation and grip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001;83:1029-33.
25Mann FA, Raissdana SS, Wilson AJ, Gilula LA. The influence of age and gender on radial height. J Hand Surg Am 1993;18:711-3.
26Porter M, Stockley I. Fractures of the distal radius. Intermediate and end results in relation to radiologic parameters. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987;(220):241-52.
27Brunelli F, Pagliei A, Smussi C. Anatomy of the dista radius. In: Saffar P, Cooney WP 3rd, editors. Fractures of the Distal. London: Martin Dunitz Ltd.; 1995. p. 1-11.
28Weiland AJ. External fixation, not ORIF, as the treatment of choice for fractures of the distal radius. J Orthop Trauma 1999;13:570-2.
29Lichtman DM, Joshi A. Acute injuries of the distal radioulnar joint and triangular fibrocartilage complex. Instr Course Lect 2003;52:175-83.
30Cooney WP. Fractures of the distal radius: Operative treatment. Instr Course Lect. 1993;42:73-88.
31William HS, Rick FP. Fractures and dislocations of the wrist. In: Rockwood CA Jr., Green DP, editors. Fractures in Adults. 5th ed., Vol. 1. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 2001. p. 749-814.
32Jupiter JB, Fernandez DL, Whipple TL, Richards RR. Intra-articular fractures of the distal radius: Contemporary perspectives. Instr Course Lect 1998;47:191-202.
33Netter FH. Atlas of Human Anatomy. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2006.
34Berger RA, Gracia Elias M. General anatomy of the wrist. Chapter 1 in Biomechanics of the Wrist Joint. Springer – Verlag Publication; 1991.
35Palmer AK, Werner FW. The triangular fibrocartilage complex of the wrist – Anatomy and function. J Hand Surg Am 1981;6:153-62.
36Goldfarb CA, Yin Y, Gilula LA, Fisher AJ, Boyer MI. Wrist fractures: What the clinician wants to know. Radiology 2001;219:11-28.
37Metz VM, Gilula LA. Imaging techniques for distal radius fractures and related injuries. Orthop Clin North Am 1993;24:217-28.
38Canale ST, Beaty JH. Campbells Operative Orthopaedics. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby, Elsevier; 2007.
39Collins DC. Management and rehabilitation of distal radius fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 1993;24:365-78.
40Dowling JJ, Sawyer B Jr. Comminuted Colles' fractures. Evaluation of a method of treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1961;43-A:657-68.
41Szabo RM. Extra-articular fractures of the distal radius. Orthop Clin North Am 1993;24:229-37.
42Palmer AK. The distal radioulnar joint. Anatomy, biomechanics, and triangular fibrocartilage complex abnormalities. Hand Clin 1987;3:31-40.
43Volz RG, Lieb M, Benjamin J. Biomechanics of the wrist. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1980;(149):112-7.
44Taleisnik J. The ligaments of the wrist. J Hand Surg Am 1976;1:110-8.
45Wright TW, Horodyski M, Smith DW. Functional outcome of unstable distal radius fractures: ORIF with a volar fixed-angle tine plate versus fixation. J hand surg [Am] 2005:30;289-99.
46Mayfield JK. Wrist ligamentous anatomy and pathogenesis of carpal instability. Orthop Clin North Am 1984;15:209-16.
47Short WH, Palmer AK, Werner FW, Murphy DJ. A biomechanical studyof distal radial fractures. J Hand Surg Am 1987;12:529-34.
48Lichtman DM, Schneider JR, Swafford AR, Mack GR. Ulnar midcarpal instability-clinical and laboratory analysis. J Hand Surg Am 1981;6:515-23.
49Linschield RL. Examination of the wrist. In: Nakamura R, Linschield RL, Miura T, editors. Wrist Disorders: Current Concepts and Challenges. Tokyo: Springer Verlag; 1992. p. 13-25.
50Cooney WP. Fractures of the distal radius. In: Cooney WP, Linscheid RL, Dobyns JH, editors. The Wrist Diagnosis and Operative Management. Vol. 1. St. Louis: Mosby; 1998. p. 310-55.
51Frykman G. Fracture of the distal radius including sequelae– Shoulder-Hand-Finger syndrome, disturbance in the distal radio-ulnar joint, and impairment of nerve function: A clinical and experimental study. Acta Orthop Scand 1967;108 (Suppl):1-153.
52Putman MD, Seitz WH. Fractures of the distal radius. Chapter 20 in Rockwood and Greens fractures in adults. Edited by Bucholz RZ, Heckman JD. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins publication 2001:815-67.
53Handoll HH, Huntley JS, Madhok R. External fixation versus conservative treatment for distal radial fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;18:CD006194.
54Simic PM, Weiland AJ. Fractures of the distal aspect of the radius: Changes in treatment over the past two decades. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:552-64.
55Jupiter JB. Current concepts review. Fractures of the distal end of the radius. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1993;73-A:461-63.
56Simic PM, Weiland AJ. Fractures of the radius: Changes in treatment over the past two decades. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:552-64.
57Thompson GH, Grant TT. Barton's fractures-reverse Barton's fractures. Confusing eponyms. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1977;(122):210-21.
58Saffar P. Current trends in treatment and classification of distal radial fractures. In: Saffar P, Cooney WP, 3rd, editors. Fractures of the Distal Radius: London: Martin Dunitz Ltd.; 1995. p. 12-8.
59Dicpinigaitis P, Wolinsky P, Hiebert R, Egol K, Koval K, Tejwani N, et al. Can external fixation maintain reduction after distal radius fractures? J Trauma 2004;57:845-50.
60Hutchinson DT, Strenz GO, Cautilli RA. Pins and plaster vs. external fixation in the treatment of unstable distal radial fractures. A randomized prospective study. J Hand Surg Br 1995;20:365-72.
61Lennox JD, Page BJ 2nd, Mandell RM. Use of the Clyburn external fixator in fractures of the distal radius. J Trauma 1989;29:326-31.
62McQueen MM, Hajducka C, Court-Brown CM. Redisplaced unstable fractures of the distal radius: A prospective randomized compression plates. J Hand Surg Am 2005;30:7439.
63Watson-Jones R. Fractures and Joint Injuries. 4th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1962.
64Gartland J Jr., Werley CW. Evaluation of healed Colles fractures: Functional bracing in supination. J Bone Joint Surg 1975:57:311-7.
65Sarmiento A, Pratt GW, Berry NC, Sinclair WF. Colles' fractures. Functional bracing in supination. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1975;57:311-7.
66Rayhack JM. The history and evolution of percutaneous pinning of displaced distal radius fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 1993;24:287-300.
67Lidstrom A. Fractures of the distal end of the radius. A clinical and statistical study of end results. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 1959;41:1-18.
68Cooney WP. Fractures of the distal radius. A modern treatment-based classification. Orthop Clin North Am 1993;24:211-6.
69Fernández DL. Fractures of the distal radius: Operative treatment. Instr Course Lect 1993;42:73-88.
70Wei DH, Raizman NM, Bottino CJ, Jobin CM, Strauch RJ, Rosenwasser MP. Unstable distal radial fractures treated with external fixation, a radial column plate, or a volar plate. A prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:1568-77.
71Margaliot Z, Haase SC, Kotsis SV, Kim HM, Chung KC. A meta-analysis of outcomes of external fixation versus plate osteosynthesis for unstable distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am 2005;30:1185-99.
72Gradl G, Gradl G, Wendt M, Mittlmeier T, Kundt G, Jupiter JB. Non-bridging external fixation employing multiplanar K-wires versus volar locked plating for dorsally displaced fractures of the distal radius. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013;133:595-602.
73Westphal T, Piatek S, Schubert S, Winckler S. Outcome after surgery of distal radius fractures: No differences between external fixation and ORIF. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2005;125:507-14.
74Wolfe SW, Swigart CR, Graner J, Slade JF, Panjabi MM. Augmented external fixation of distal radius fractures. A biomechanical analysis: J Hand Surg 1998;23-A:127-34.
75Grewal R, MacDermid JC, King GJ, Faber KJ. Open reduction internal fixation versus percutaneous pinning with external fixation of distal radius fractures: A prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Hand Surg Am 2011;36:1899-906.
76Kamano M, Honda Y, Kazuki K, Yasuda M. Palmar plating for dorsally displaced fractures of the distal radius. Clin Orthop Relat Res2002;397:403-8.
77Landgren M, Jerrhag D, Tägil M, Kopylov P, Geijer M, Abramo A. External or internal fixation in the treatment of non-reducible distal radial fractures? Acta Orthop 2011;82:610-3.
78Wilcke MK, Abbaszadegan H, Adolphson PY. Wrist function recovers more rapidly after volar locked plating than after external fixation but the outcomes are similar after 1 year. Acta Orthop 2011;82:76-81.
79Marcheix PS, Dotzis A, Benkö PE, Siegler J, Arnaud JP, Charissoux JL. Extension fractures of the distal radius in patients older than 50: A prospective randomized study comparing fixation using mixed pins or a palmar fixed-angle plate. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2010;35:646-51.
80Anderson JT, Lucas GL, Buhr BR. Complications of treating distal radius fractures with external fixation: A community experience. Iowa Orthop J 2004;24:53-9.
81Cooney WP 3rd, Linscheid RL, Dobyns JH. External pin fixation for unstable Colles' fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979;61:840-5.
82Edwards GS Jr. Intra-articular fractures of the distal part of the radius treated with the small AO external fixator. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:1241-50.
83Jonsson U. External fixation for redislocated Colles' fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 1983;54:878-83.
84Gereli A, Nalbantoǧlu U, Kocaoǧlu B, Türkmen M. Comparison of palmar locking plate and K-wire augmented external fixation for intra-articular and comminuted distal radius fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2010;44:212-9.
85Shukla R, Jain RK, Sharma NK, Kumar R. External fixation versus volar locking plate for displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures: A prospective randomized comparative study of the functional outcomes. J Orthop Traumatol 2014;15:265-70.
86Williksen JH, Husby T, Hellund JC, Kvernmo HD, Rosales C, Frihagen F. External fixation and adjuvant pins versus volar locking plate fixation in unstable distal radius fractures: A randomized, controlled study with a 5-year follow-up. J Hand Surg Am 2015;40:1333-40.
87Fakoor M, Fakoor M, Mohammadhoseini P. Displaced intra-articular fractures of the distal radius: Open reduction with internal fixation versus bridging external fixation. Trauma Mon 2015;20:e17631.
88Kenan G, Serdar T, Uygar K, Faik I. Comparison of locking anatomic volar plate fixation and external fixation in the treatment of AO type C radius distal-end fractures. Hand Microsurg 2016;6:1. [doi: 10.5455/ handmicrosurg.220534].
89Dash SK, Sharma MK, Mishra S, Marandi H, Das A, Satapathy D, et al. Clinical outcomes in management of unstable distal radius fractures treated with external fixation and internal fixation: A prospective comparative study. Int J Res Orthop 2017;3:1004-9.
90Lee YM, Lee HS, Song SW, Choi JH, Park JT. Comparison of the results between internal fixation and external fixation in AO C type distal radiusfracture. J Korean Fract Soc 2018;31:87-93.
91McQueen MM. Redisplaced unstable fractures of the distal radius. A randomised, prospective study of bridging versus non-bridging external fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:665-9.
92Wright TW, Horodyski M, Smith DW. Functional outcome of unstable distal radius fractures: ORIF with a volar fixed-angle tine plate versus external fixation. J Hand Surg Am 2005;30:289-99.