Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Bichat Claude Bernard Teaching Hospital, Paris Diderot University, 46 rue Henri Huchard, 75877 Paris cedex 18, France.
Injury. 2012 Feb;43(2):174-9. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.05.021. Epub 2011 Jun 25.
The traditional treatment of severely impacted fractures of the distal radius involves bridging external fixation and maintaining reduction by applying continuous traction. The recent technique using fixed-angle screws within volar plates is reported restore the radial length and the articular profile whilst avoiding joint distraction. It is also believed to produce better and quicker clinical results. To test these claims, we carried out a randomised controlled comparison of the efficiency of external fixation (EF) 'versus' open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in treating severely impacted fractures of the distal radius. A total of 39 patients were treated with EF, eventually associated with percutaneous pinning, whereas 36 underwent ORIF with a locked volar plate. There was no significant difference in the two groups with regard to changes in the ulnar variance. Articular reduction was poor in two patients in the EF group with residual step-offs exceeding 2mm; another patient of the EF group suffered a secondary loss of reduction, healing with a severe articular malunion (>2mm). By contrast, articular reduction was satisfactory in all the patients of the ORIF group. The clinical results on the Green and O'Brien rating were significantly better in the ORIF group than in the EF group (p<0.01 at 6 weeks, p<0.05 at 6 months). Nevertheless, open reduction and volar plating did not yield better subjective results than EF. However, although not statistically significant, patients treated by ORIF seemed to resume their usual activities quicker than those treated with EF, suggesting that this technique may be adapted to a greater extent in the case of active, young individuals.
传统治疗严重桡骨远端骨折的方法包括桥接外固定和持续牵引维持复位。最近使用掌侧钢板内固定角螺钉的技术被报道可以恢复桡骨长度和关节轮廓,同时避免关节分离。它也被认为能产生更好更快的临床效果。为了验证这些说法,我们对严重桡骨远端骨折的外固定(EF)与切开复位内固定(ORIF)的治疗效果进行了随机对照比较。共有 39 例患者接受 EF 治疗,最终与经皮钢针固定联合治疗,而 36 例患者接受锁定掌侧钢板的 ORIF 治疗。两组患者在尺骨变异方面没有显著差异。EF 组中有 2 名患者的关节复位较差,残留台阶超过 2mm;EF 组的另一名患者发生继发性复位丢失,愈合时出现严重的关节畸形(>2mm)。相比之下,ORIF 组所有患者的关节复位都令人满意。ORIF 组的临床结果(Green 和 O'Brien 评分)明显优于 EF 组(6 周时 p<0.01,6 个月时 p<0.05)。然而,切开复位和掌侧钢板内固定并不能比 EF 获得更好的主观结果。然而,尽管没有统计学意义,但接受 ORIF 治疗的患者似乎比接受 EF 治疗的患者更快地恢复正常活动,这表明这种技术在活动能力强、年轻的患者中可能会更大程度地被采用。