Purpose Displaced distal radius fractures in children are common and often reduced if necessary and immobilized in cast. Still, fracture redisplacement frequently occurs. This can be prevented by fixation of fracture fragments with K-wires, but until now, there are no clear guidelines for treatment with primary K-wire fixation. This meta-analysis aimed to identify risk factors for redisplacement after reduction and cast immobilization of displaced distal radius fractures in children, and thereby determine which children will benefit most of primary additional K-wire fixation. Methods Eight databases were searched to identify studies and extract data on the incidence of and risk factors for redisplacement of distal radius fractures after initial reduction and cast immobilization in children. Results Twelve studies, including 1256 patients, showed that initial complete displacement (odds ratio [OR] 4.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.98-7.39) and presence of a both-bone fracture (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.34-2.85) were independent risk factors for redisplacement. Anatomical reduction reduced the redisplacement risk (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05-0.40). No significant influence on redisplacement risk could be established for female sex, experience level of the attending surgeon, Cast Index < 0.8, Three-Point Index < 0.8 and patient's age. Conclusions For children with a displaced distal radius fracture, the presence of a both-bone fracture, complete displacement of the distal radius and non-anatomical reduction are risk factors for redisplacement after reduction of their initially displaced distal radius fracture. Children with one or more of these risk factors probably benefit most of reduction combined with primary K-wire fixation.

PurposeDisplaced distal radius fractures in children are common and often treated by reduction and cast immobilization. Redisplacement occurs frequently and may be prevented by additional treatment with K-wire fixation after initial reduction. This meta-analysis aims to summarize available literature on this topic and determine if primary K-wire fixation is the preferred treatment for displaced distal radius fractures in children.MethodsA search in eight databases identified studies that compared cast immobilization alone to additional K-wire fixation as treatment for displaced paediatric distal radius fractures. The primary outcome was the redisplacement rate. Secondary outcomes were secondary reduction rate, range of motion and complications. This meta-analysis was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement.ResultsThree RCTs and 3 cohort studies, analysing 197 patients treated with cast immobilization alone and 185 with additional K-wire fixation, were included in this meta-analysis. Redisplacement occurred less frequently after additional K-wire fixation than after cast alone (3.8 versus 45.7%; OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03–0.15). Secondary reduction was performed in 59.8% of the redisplaced fractures. Complications, other than redisplacement, occurred more often after additional K-wire fixation than after cast alone (15.7 versus 3.6%). Range of motion did not differ after both treatments.ConclusionsAdditional K-wire fixation is a suitable treatment to prevent redisplacement and secondary operations after initial reduction of displaced distal radius fractures in children, but is associated with post-procedural complications. Additional K-wire fixation does not result in a better range of motion than cast immobilization alone. More research is needed to identify those patients who will benefit the most from K-wire fixation as a treatment for displaced distal radius fractures in children.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00068-018-1011-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionClavicular shortening due to non-anatomical healing of displaced clavicular fractures is believed to have a negative effect on shoulder function after recovery. The evidence for this, however, is equivocal. This review aimed to systematically evaluate the available literature to determine whether the current beliefs about clavicular shortening can be substantiated.Materials and methodsThis systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Clinical Trial Registry were searched to identify all studies published in English that evaluated the association between clavicular shortening and shoulder function in patients aged ≥16 years with a nonoperatively treated, displaced midshaft clavicular fracture. Relevant data from the selected studies was extracted and summarized. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the MINORS instrument.ResultsSix studies, of which five were retrospective, were included in this review analyzing a total of 379 patients. Due to heterogeneity in methods and reporting across studies, a pooled analysis of the results was not feasible. No clear associations were found between shortening and shoulder function scores (DASH and Constant score) or arm strength in each of the included studies.ConclusionThe existing evidence to date does not allow for a valid conclusion regarding the influence of shortening on shoulder function after union of nonoperatively treated midshaft clavicular fractures. Shortening alone is currently not an evidence-based indication to operate for the goal of functional improvement. Well-powered prospective comparative studies are needed to draw firm conclusions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00402-017-2734-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.