Gopal Nikhil, Anil Abhijith, Gopal Meera, Bhat Anil K
Department of Orthopaedics, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Department of Hand Surgery, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
J Hand Surg Am. 2025 Mar;50(3):265-273. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2024.08.016. Epub 2024 Oct 8.
Percutaneous fixation with Kirschner wires and open reduction and internal fixation with volar locking plates are the most common surgical techniques for managing distal radius fractures (DRFs). As the superiority of either technique is yet to be established, we aimed to conduct an updated systematic review to compare these techniques for the optimal management of unstable DRFs.
We conducted a comprehensive literature search to identify studies comparing fixation outcomes for DRFs between groups treated with Kirschner wires and those treated with volar locking plates. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality of RCTs. Meta-analyses were performed only on outcome measures that were reported at the same time points using the same metrics across three or more RCTs. Evaluated outcomes included the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, grip strength, wrist range of motion, and radiological outcomes. We also assessed the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) score and incidence of complications.
Fourteen RCTs with 2,226 patients were included in the meta-analysis. DASH scores were significantly lower in the plating group at all time points. PRWE outcomes favored the plating group at follow-ups greater than 1 year. There were no significant differences in radiological outcomes or incidence of complications between the two groups.
Although the plating group provided marginally better functional outcomes at 1 year after surgery, the K-wire group remained a viable alternative. The reported differences should be interpreted cautiously because of the inherent variability of the included RCTs. High-quality RCTs with strict inclusion criteria and standard postoperative protocols are essential to generalize our results across all age groups and fracture types to overcome our study's limitations.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy/Prevention, Etiology/Harm II.
克氏针经皮固定以及掌侧锁定钢板切开复位内固定是治疗桡骨远端骨折(DRF)最常用的手术技术。由于两种技术的优势尚未明确,我们旨在进行一项更新的系统评价,以比较这些技术对不稳定DRF的最佳治疗效果。
我们进行了全面的文献检索,以确定比较克氏针治疗组和掌侧锁定钢板治疗组DRF固定效果的研究。仅纳入随机对照试验(RCT)。使用修订后的Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估RCT的方法学质量。仅对在三个或更多RCT中使用相同指标在同一时间点报告的结局指标进行荟萃分析。评估的结局包括上肢、肩部和手部功能障碍(DASH)评分、握力、腕关节活动范围和影像学结局。我们还评估了患者自评腕关节评估(PRWE)评分和并发症发生率。
荟萃分析纳入了14项RCT,共2226例患者。在所有时间点,钢板固定组的DASH评分均显著更低。在随访超过1年时,PRWE结局有利于钢板固定组。两组在影像学结局或并发症发生率方面无显著差异。
尽管钢板固定组在术后1年的功能结局略好,但克氏针组仍是一种可行的替代方法。由于纳入的RCT存在固有变异性,对所报告的差异应谨慎解释。具有严格纳入标准和标准术后方案的高质量RCT对于将我们的结果推广到所有年龄组和骨折类型以克服本研究的局限性至关重要。
研究类型/证据水平:治疗/预防,病因学/危害II。