The Effect Immobilization Mechanisms Have on Radiographic Outcomes and Complication Rates in the Conservative Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures: A Systematic Review. (December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jamnik, Adam A.; Chacon, Jose; Xiao, Angel X.; Wagner, Eric R.; Gottschalk, Michael B.
• Is Part Of: Hand. Volume 17:Number 1(2022)Supplement
• Page Start: 118S
• Page End: 128S
• Publication Date: 2022-12
• Subjects: distal radius -- fracture/dislocation -- diagnosis -- forearm -- anatomy -- trauma -- treatment -- research and health outcomes -- outcomes; Hand -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Hand -- Surgery; Periodicals; 617.57005
• DOI: 10.1177/15589447221081864
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1558-9447

Abstract

Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are among the most common fractures in the United States. Despite their high incidence, there is no consensus on the optimal type of cast or splint to treat these fractures. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the available literature pertaining to the outcomes for different constructs used to conservatively treat DRFs. A literature search of PubMed, Medline, and Embase was conducted to identify research comparing the outcomes of various immobilization mechanisms. In particular, endpoints included complications (eg, loss of reduction, pain), radiographic outcomes, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores. A total of 1655 articles were identified during the literature search, and 22 ultimately fulfilled inclusion criteria. These 22 studies included 1826 conservatively treated DRFs. The different immobilization mechanisms were divided into 8 groupings: above-elbow casts, above-elbow splints, below-elbow casts, below-elbow splints, gutter or spica casts, gutter or spica splints, dorsal-volar splints, and dorsal splints. Qualitative review of the studies determined that below-elbow constructs result in equal or better functional and radiologic outcomes when compared with above-elbow constructs. Meta-analysis demonstrated that a statistically significant difference ( P = .04) existed in the incidence of loss of reduction between the immobilization constructs, although post hoc analysis did not detect significant differences between 2 particular constructs.