The Effect of a PEEK Material‐Based External Fixator in the Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures with Non‐Transarticular External Fixation

Abstract

Objective To explore the effect of a PEEK material‐based external fixator in the treatment of distal radius fractures with non‐transarticular external fixation. Methods There were 48 patients in this prospective comparative study. They were divided into two groups according to the materials used: the PEEK group and the titanium group. Wrist dorsiflexion, palmar flexion, pronation, supination, radial deviation, ulnar deviation, grip strength of the palm on the affected side, kneading force, Visual Analogue Scale/Score (VAS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, operation time, frequency of fluoroscopy procedures, and X‐ray results were compared between the two groups. Functional recovery was evaluated at the last follow‐up according to the wrist joint evaluation criteria. Results The baseline data were comparable between the two groups, and no significant differences were found in age, sex, fracture types (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the results of DASH, grip strength, and recovery of pinch force and wrist function (dorsiflexion, clavicle, ulnar deviation, deviation, pronation, and supination) (P > 0.05). Normal limb function was achieved in the two groups of patients at an average of 6 weeks after surgery, and there was no significant difference in X‐ray examination radial height (10.60 ± 1.59 vs 11.00 ± 1.53, P = 0.687), radial inclination (1.11 ± 0.24 vs 1.12 ± 0.24, P = 0.798), volar tilt (10.33 ± 2.13 vs 10.00 ± 2.08, P = 0.660), ulnar variance (20.87 ± 3.00 vs 20.38 ± 3.04, P = 0.748), and step‐off persistence (1.73 ± 0.69 vs 1.68 ± 0.72, P = 0.425) between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, the operation time (54.80 ± 12.20 vs 85.23 ± 15.14, P = 0.033) and number of fluoroscopy procedures (36.93 ± 6.89 vs 64.77 ± 9.74, P = 0.000) in the PEEK group were significantly reduced compared with those in the titanium group. Conclusion Compared with the traditional titanium external fixator, the PEEK composite external fixator has advantages, such as a shorter operation time and fewer fluoroscopy procedures when used to treat different types of distal radius fracture.

Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures with Bridging External Fixator with Optional Percutaneous K-Wires: What Are the Right Indications for Patient Age, Gender, Dominant Limb and Injury Pattern?

“…Another study reported that VLP fixation resulted in faster recovery of function compared to EF, but no functional advantage was demonstrated at two years' short follow-up [40]. Furthermore, patients undergoing DRF surgery with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) have a higher risk of wound infection and tendonitis [41].…”

“…First, it scarcely affects the blood supply around the fracture ends, which is conducive to recanalisation of bone vessels and creates a good fracture-healing environment. Second, non-cross-joint fixation allows normal movement of the wrist, diminishes stiffness, stimulates cartilage repair, decreases osteopenia of the distal fragment and reduces fear among patients [41].…”

Evaluation of open reduction and internal fixation with closed reduction and external fixation in distal radial fracture

“…Furthermore, the different surgical administration is better than other medications. 5 In addition, the pin and plaster fixation and percutaneous pinning medication are not appropriate processes for volatile distal radial fractures. Similarly, this way can bring poor results for the treatment.…”

“…On other hand, surgical treatment is suggested for volatile and non-reducible distal radial fractures and it can be complicated. [3][4][5] Similarly, few observational studies have demonstrated the benefit of the usage of plates. In addition, most of the time external fixation is normally used in the distal radial fractures.…”

“…In addition, most of the time external fixation is normally used in the distal radial fractures. 4,5 Therefore, the above-mentioned two methods are appropriate for volatile distal radial fractures. Furthermore, it has been controversy over the few years which is the way of treatment or suitable therapies for distal radial fractures.…”