BackgroundDistal radial fractures are common traumatic injuries, but their management remains controversial also in case of conservative treatment regarding the type of immobilisation. Hence, we conducted a two-arm, parallel-group, prospective randomised trial to compare the capacity of long casts (above-elbow) and short casts (below-elbow) to maintain the reduction of extra-articular distal radius fractures with dorsal displacement (AO/OTA classification: 2R3A2.2).MethodsSeventy-four eligible patients with AO/OTA 2R3A2.2 fractures treated with closed reduction and cast immobilisation were randomised to the long cast group (n°= 37) or to the short cast group (n°= 37). Baseline radiological parameters, radial inclination (RI), radial height (RH), ulnar variance (UV) and palmar tilt (PT) were taken, and compared with clinical (DASH, Mayo Wrist and Mayo Elbow) and radiological scores taken at 7–10 days, 4 weeks and 12 weeks. Furthermore, to evaluate correlations between radiological parameters and functional outcomes, patients were divided into two groups according to whether or not their radiological parameters at Follow-ups 2 and 3 were acceptable, i.e. within the range 11–12 mm for RH, 16°–28° for RI, − 4–+ 2 mm for UV and 0°–22° for PT.ResultsPatient demographic and baseline radiological parameters were similar between groups. At follow-up, there were no statistically significant differences between the two types of cast in terms of RI, RH, UV or PT, or Mayo wrist or DASH scores. Short cast group patients displayed better Mayo elbow score at follow-up 2 (4 weeks), but this difference was no longer statistically significant at follow-up 3 (12 weeks). No statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes were found between patients who presented acceptable radiographic parameters at follow-up and those who did not.ConclusionAs there were no significant differences between short casts and long casts in terms of fracture reduction maintenance or clinical outcomes, short casts are an effective method of post-reduction immobilisation in AO/OTA 2R3A2.2 fracture of the radius. Radiological parameters outside the range conventionally considered acceptable do not preclude a satisfactory clinical outcome.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov PRS, NCT04062110. Registred 20 August 2019.

Background Guidelines underline the importance of early surgery in elderly patients with proximal femoral fractures. However, most of these patients present a high number of comorbidities, some of which require the use of warfarin. Waiting for INR decrease is a cause of surgical delay, and this influences negatively their outcome. Methods We retrospectively reviewed all patients with proximal femoral fracture admitted to our unit from March 2013 to March 2017 to determine whether warfarin therapy is associated with reduction of survival, delay of surgery, and increased blood loss. From 1706 patient, a total of 1292 fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included. Data regarding general information (type of fracture according to AO/OTA classification), pharmacological history regarding anticoagulant therapy pre-admission, surgery (type of surgery and time to surgery), clinical findings (blood loss), and date of exitus were collected. Results We identified 157 patients with warfarin, 442 with antiplatelet agents (aspirin, clopidogrel, ticlopidin), and 693 in the control group. We observed a significant difference in the warfarin group regarding an increased ASA score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and blood loss. Patients taking warfarin experience delay to the theater significantly more than the other groups. Patients in warfarin therapy have a 42% higher risk of death within 1 year from their surgery. Patients who underwent surgery after 48 h have 1.5 times higher risk of mortality with respect to the patients who underwent surgery within 48 h. Conclusion Warfarin therapy at the time of proximal femoral fractures is associated with increased time to surgery, blood loss, and mortality.

These kinds of fractures should be assessed individually and the optimal treatment plan should be made in accordance with the bone stock quality, stem stability, location of the fracture and patient expectations.

IV.