Nonbridging External Fixation of Distal Radius Fractures

Eichenbaum, Matthew D.; Shin, Eon K.

doi:10.1016/j.hcl.2010.04.006

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some authors advocated the use of EF in the shaft of radius fractures in children [11,12], and some reported the use of non-bridging EF for the distal radius fractures in adults [13][14][15][16]. Even recently, Korobeinikov et al reported the utilization of the Ilizarov frame for the distal radius fracture in children, with satisfactory clinical outcomes [17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fixation of delayed distal radial fracture involving metaphyseal diaphyseal junction in adolescents: a comparative study of crossed Kirschner-wiring and non-bridging external fixator

Rai

Tang

et al. 2020

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Conservative treatment remains the preferred choice for distal radius fracture in children. However, loss of reduction is problematic, especially in an older child. Crossed Kirschner-wires is widely used to treat distal radius fracture in adolescents. This study aimed to compare the application of crossed Kirschner-wiring (KW) and non-bridging external fixator (EF) for the treatment of delayed distal radial fracture involving metaphyseal diaphyseal junction (MDJ) in adolescents. Methods: Between January 2012 to January 2017, 146 (male = 101, female = 45) patients in EF group and 117 (male = 76, female = 41) in KW group, were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperative data were collected from the hospital database, and postoperative clinical outcomes data were collected during the follow-up visits. We used SPSS for data analysis. Results: There existed no significant difference between EF and KW regarding sex, body weight, fracture side, duration from injury to surgery. The duration of surgery was significantly shorter in EF (30.5 ± 6.1 min) than the KW group (44.6 ± 9.4 min), P < 0.001. The number of intraoperative X-ray images was significantly lower in EF (6.5 ± 1.1) than KW (11.8 ± 2.3), P < 0.001. The incidence of tendon irritation is significantly higher in the KW (19.7%) than the EF group (0%), P < 0.001. The residual angulation on the AP view was higher in KW (3.8 ± 2.3, degrees) than the EF group (2.5 ± 1.6, degrees), P < 0.001. The volar tilting is better in EF (6.6 ± 1.1, degrees) than the KW group (1.0 ± 1.5, degrees), P < 0.001. However, the functional outcomes of the wrist showed no significant difference between EF and KW group, P = 0.086. Conclusion: The EF was superior to KW in the treatment of radial MDJ fractures in adolescents. The EF displayed shorter duration of surgery, less tendon irritation, and better radiographic outcomes than the KW. However, the cost-effect analysis remains to be investigated, because the EF is more expensive than KW.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fixation of delayed distal radial fracture involving metaphyseal diaphyseal junction in adolescents: a comparative study of crossed Kirschner-wiring and non-bridging external fixator

Rai

Tang

et al. 2020

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…La vasta literatura recomienda la reducción abierta y fijación interna (RAFI) como método gold estándar para el tratamiento de las Fracturas del extremo distal de radio del adulto (2), Sin embargo, se sabe y la evidencia bibliográfica es contundente que ciertos tipos o patrones de fracturas tratadas con FE obtienen buenos resultados también. Siguiendo esta línea es claro que las fracturas tipo 23C2 y 23C3 de la clasificación AO/ASIF, las fracturas expuestas, las que presentan grave lesión de partes blandas o un síndrome compartimental el fijador externo es la mejor conducta para su tratamiento inicial y hasta definitivo (2,3,4).…”

Section: Indicación En La Actualidadunclassified

“…Los FE NonBrinding en contraposición de los FE Brinding, promueven la estabilización de la fractura con la colocación de los clavos de Schanz (CZ) entre los trazos fracturarios. Este tipo de fijadores necesitan de al menos 1 cm de fragmento distal de radio para anclar los CZ (2,3). Su ventaja con respecto a su adversario es que deja libre la articulación radio carpiana, sin utilizar ligamentotaxis y de esta forma "disminuiría la distrofia simpática refleja (DSF)" tan temida por nuestros colegas, tema que desarrollaremos a continuación.…”

Section: Qué Tipo De Fijador Es El Más Adecuadounclassified

Que sabemos del tratamiento de las fracturas del extremo distal de radio con fijadores externo luego de 30 años. Experiencia y breve revisión bibliográfica

Vivas

2021

Rev Peru Investig Salud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducción: Las fracturas del extremo distal de radio son un gran tema de controversia debido a su gran variabilidad de patrones radiológicos como de tipo de paciente. La discordancia clínico radiológica sigue sin resolver cual es el mejor método. Decidimos desarrollar nuestra experiencia con fijación externa y realizar una breve revisión sobre el tema. Objetivo: Se realizó una búsqueda bibliografía por dos de los buscadores más completos y actualizados sobre salud acerca de todo le referente a fracturas de extremo distal de radio tratados con fijadores externos en los últimos 30 años. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda con las siglas “fracture distal radius with external fixator” en el MEDLINE y ProQuest Health & Medical Complete donde se obtuvieron 1367 artículos en total de los cuales se seleccionaron 243 artículos que respondían a nuestro interés. Resultados y conclusiones: Los datos que obtuvimos fueron muy satisfactorios con respecto al tratamiento de fracturas del radio con fijadores externos. Podemos concluir que es un método indiscutido en algunos tipos de fracturas, que promueven el respeto a las partes blandas y al tratamiento biológico de las fracturas sin olvidarnos de la rápida rehabilitación que se logra con el fijador externo.

show abstract

“…This form of instrumentation is suitable for more proximal fractures with an intact distal radius rim. 35 External fixators can be an adjunct to arthroscopic fracture reduction and serve as a neutralization device with minimal traction. 36…”

Section: Closed Reduction and Fixation Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Concepts in the Treatment of Distal Radial Fractures

Ipaktchi¹,

Livermore²,

Lyons³

et al. 2013

Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distal radial fractures are among the most commonly encountered traumatic fractures of the upper extremity. Initial trauma mechanism, fracture pattern, associated injuries, and patient age influence treatment and outcome. Although stable fractures are commonly treated conservatively, the past decade has seen changes in surgical practice and techniques. Indications for surgery have been extended and refined based on new insight into the pathophysiology of the distal end of the forearm and technological advances in implant design. Despite the frequency of this fracture, only limited higher-level evidence exists to guide practitioners in decision making for this injury. This article highlights key concepts in the treatment of distal radial fractures and summarizes current evidence.

show abstract

Nonbridging External Fixation of Distal Radius Fractures

Cited by 10 publications

References 48 publications

Fixation of delayed distal radial fracture involving metaphyseal diaphyseal junction in adolescents: a comparative study of crossed Kirschner-wiring and non-bridging external fixator

Fixation of delayed distal radial fracture involving metaphyseal diaphyseal junction in adolescents: a comparative study of crossed Kirschner-wiring and non-bridging external fixator

Que sabemos del tratamiento de las fracturas del extremo distal de radio con fijadores externo luego de 30 años. Experiencia y breve revisión bibliográfica

Current Concepts in the Treatment of Distal Radial Fractures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About