Child Christopher, Müller Annika, Allemann Florin, Pape Hans-Christoph, Welter JoEllen, Breiding Philipe, Hess Florian
Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Cantonal Hospital Frauenfeld, Pfaffenholzstrasse 4, 8501, Frauenfeld, Switzerland.
Department of Trauma Surgery, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022 Dec;48(6):4357-4364. doi: 10.1007/s00068-020-01389-y. Epub 2020 May 15.
Complex intraarticular distal radius fractures are common, and treatment with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) can be done through either the palmar or dorsal approach. There is scant evidence, however, indicating which approach is more suitable. We compared clinical and radiological outcomes of patients with AO 2R3 C3 fractures surgically treated with one of these approaches.
From January 2015 to November 2018, 72 surgically treated patients with AO 2R3 C3 fractures were radiologically (12 months) and clinically (mean 26 months) evaluated. Forty-one patients underwent ORIF using the palmar approach (Group 1), and the dorsal approach was used in 31 patients (Group 2). Radiological parameters were measured using the AO scoring system immediately following surgery and 12 months later. Clinical assessments included the range of motion, PRWE and DASH scores.
At the immediate postoperative assessment, the median AO score was 5.5 (IQR 2-9.5, range 0-30.5) for Group 1 and 8 (IQR 5-15, range 0-27) for Group 2, and 12-month follow-up results were 4.5 (IQR 1.5-10, range 0-41) and 6.5 (IQR 5-11, range 0-29.5), respectively. Group 1 had more favorable results for the flexion, extension, radial abduction, PRWE and DASH parameters. The plate removal and reoperation rates were higher in Group 2.
When treating complex intraarticular distal radius fractures, we found the palmar approach was more advantageous for this fracture pattern. Nevertheless, a dorsal approach may still be suitable for intraarticular comminuted distal radius fractures with dorsally displaced joint fragments.
复杂的桡骨远端关节内骨折很常见,切开复位内固定(ORIF)治疗可通过掌侧或背侧入路进行。然而,几乎没有证据表明哪种入路更合适。我们比较了采用这两种入路之一手术治疗的AO 2R3 C3骨折患者的临床和影像学结果。
2015年1月至2018年11月,对72例接受手术治疗的AO 2R3 C3骨折患者进行了影像学(12个月)和临床(平均26个月)评估。41例患者采用掌侧入路进行ORIF(第1组),31例患者采用背侧入路(第2组)。术后立即及12个月后使用AO评分系统测量影像学参数。临床评估包括活动范围、PRWE和DASH评分。
术后立即评估时,第1组的AO评分中位数为5.5(四分位间距2 - 9.5,范围0 - 30.5),第2组为8(四分位间距5 - 15,范围0 - 27),12个月随访结果分别为4.5(四分位间距1.5 - 10,范围0 - 41)和6.5(四分位间距5 - 11,范围0 - 29.5)。第1组在屈曲、伸展、桡侧外展、PRWE和DASH参数方面结果更优。第2组的钢板取出率和再次手术率更高。
在治疗复杂的桡骨远端关节内骨折时,我们发现掌侧入路对这种骨折类型更具优势。然而,背侧入路可能仍适用于伴有背侧移位关节碎片的关节内粉碎性桡骨远端骨折。