Abe Yoshihiro, Tokunaga Susumu, Moriya Takuro
1 Chiba Rosai Hospital, Ichihara, Japan.
2 Matsudo Orthopaedic Hospital, Matsudo, Japan.
Hand (N Y). 2017 Nov;12(6):561-567. doi: 10.1177/1558944716675129. Epub 2016 Oct 28.
The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcomes and complications of volar and dorsal plating for the management of intra-articular distal radius fractures, with special regard to indications for dorsal plating. Furthermore, we examine the rationale for choosing dorsal plating and its frequency of use.
Clinical assessments included range of motion measurements at the wrist; grip strength; the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; and the Gartland and Werley score. Clinical results were compared with those achieved using a volarly placed locking plate system. According to Lutsky's plate theory, the rationale for choosing dorsal plating was based on 4 types of pathologic fractures.
Of 112 patients, 38 patients were treated with open reduction internal fixation via a dorsal approach and 68 patients were treated using a volar approach. Except for wrist flexion, there were no other statistical differences in the clinical results between groups for both subjective and objective parameters. There were no statistically significant differences in the complication rates between the volar and dorsal plated groups. One serious complication occurred after volar plating. The most common reason for choosing dorsal plating was irreducible dorsal die-punch fractures.
The treatment of displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures with a dorsally versus a volarly placed interlocking plate system demonstrated similar clinical results. Postoperative complications were not readily observed in the patients treated with a dorsal locking plate. Certain fracture patterns are more appropriately stabilized using a dorsal plate fixation.
本研究的目的是比较掌侧钢板和背侧钢板治疗桡骨远端关节内骨折的功能结果和并发症,特别关注背侧钢板的适应证。此外,我们探讨选择背侧钢板的依据及其使用频率。
临床评估包括腕关节活动度测量、握力、手臂、肩部和手部快速残疾评分以及Gartland和Werley评分。将临床结果与使用掌侧锁定钢板系统获得的结果进行比较。根据Lutsky钢板理论,选择背侧钢板的依据基于4种病理性骨折类型。
112例患者中,38例采用背侧入路切开复位内固定治疗,68例采用掌侧入路治疗。除腕关节屈曲外,两组在主观和客观参数的临床结果上没有其他统计学差异。掌侧钢板组和背侧钢板组的并发症发生率没有统计学显著差异。掌侧钢板固定后发生1例严重并发症。选择背侧钢板最常见的原因是不可复位的背侧冲压骨折。
使用背侧与掌侧锁定钢板系统治疗移位的桡骨远端关节内骨折显示出相似的临床结果。使用背侧锁定钢板治疗的患者术后未观察到明显并发症。某些骨折类型使用背侧钢板固定更合适。