Dataset Information

Duration of Cast Immobilization in Distal Radial Fractures: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Objective ?The duration of immobilization in distal radial fractures is disputed in the current literature. There are still no long-term superior outcomes of operative treatment in comparison to nonoperative treatment. A systematic review was initiated to assess the clinical controversy on the duration of the immobilization period for nonoperatively treated distal radial fractures. Materials and Methods ?A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Wiley/Cochrane Library databases and a manual reference check of the identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses was executed. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that compared two periods of immobilization, with reported functional, patient-reported, and radiological outcomes. Two reviewers independently agreed on eligibility, and assessed methodological quality and extracted outcome data. Results ?The initial search yielded 3.384 studies. Twelve trials, with 1063 patients, were included in this systematic review. Grip strength and patient-reported outcome were better in patients treated by a shorter period of immobilization. There was no difference in pain, range of motion, or radiological outcome between different periods of immobilization. Owing to heterogeneity of studies, data were unsuitable for pooling. Conclusion ?Included studies showed that there might be a preference for a shorter period of immobilization in nonoperatively treated distal radius fractures. Therefore, shortening the period of immobilization in distal radial fractures to a maximum of three weeks should be considered. Future research should include homogeneous groups of patients to draw valid conclusions on the appropriate period of immobilization for nonoperatively treated distal radial fractures. Level of Evidence ?This is a Level II study. Systematic Review Registration Number ?PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018085524.

SUBMITTER: Delft EAKV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6773589 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Duration of Cast Immobilization in Distal Radial Fractures: A Systematic Review.

Delft Eva A K van EAKV Gelder Tamara G van TGV Vries Ralph de R Vermeulen Jefrey J Bloemers Frank W FW

Journal of wrist surgery 20190318 5

<b>Objective</b> The duration of immobilization in distal radial fractures is disputed in the current literature. There are still no long-term superior outcomes of operative treatment in comparison to nonoperative treatment. A systematic review was initiated to assess the clinical controversy on the duration of the immobilization period for nonoperatively treated distal radial fractures. <b>Materials and Methods</b> A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Wiley/Cochrane ...[more]

PMID: 31579555

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Up to 30% of patients with a dislocated distal radial fracture (DRF) treated with closed reduction and cast immobilisation suffer from long-term functional restrictions. It remains unclear, whether duration of cast immobilisation influences functional outcome. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the functional outcome of dislocated DRFs could be improved by shortening the period of immobilisation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A single blinded multicentre randomised controlled trial is initiated. Four weeks of plaster cast immobilisation is compared with six week plaster cast immobilisation in adult patients with adequate reduced DRFs. Primary outcome parameters are functional outcome measured with the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation after 1 year of follow-up (FU). Secondary outcomes are: Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score after 1 year, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey after 1 year, functional outcome earlier in FU (6 weeks, 12 weeks and 6 months), range of motion, pain level and complications: number of re-interventions, secondary dislocation, delayed and non-union. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The medical ethical committee VUmc approved the study protocol (2018.004, NL62861.029.17). The expectation of this study is that a shorter duration of plaster cast immobilisation is beneficial. This risk of specific complications is low and generally similar in both treatment options. FU is standardised according to current trauma guidelines. Present literature indicates that both treatment options that are used within this study are accepted protocols for treatment of dislocated DRFs. This trial will provide Level-I evidence for the comparison of functional outcome between the two treatment options for dislocated DRFs. Results of this study are expected to be published as a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial article in 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR 6600, ABR: NL62861.029.17. Medical Ethical Committee VUmc registration number: 2018.004.

Project description:PurposeWe evaluated the literature on complications associated with different positions used for immobilizing the upper extremity during conservative treatment of distal radius fractures (DRF).MethodsA search of PubMed, Embase, and Medline was conducted to identify original research on the effects that upper extremity positioning during the treatment of DRFs has on complication rates. Treatment groups were categorized by wrist positioning in flexion, extension, or neutral, as well as forearm positioning in pronation, supination, or neutral. The primary endpoints examined included the loss of reduction, recasting/refabricating an orthosis, and functional limitations.ResultsA total of 1,655 articles were identified through an initial database search. Ultimately, 8 studies, with 786 total patients, met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. A qualitative analysis determined that immobilizing DRFs with the wrist in extension results in better functional and radiographic outcomes with lower rates of complications, such as pain, recasting, and the need for operation. The 2 studies that compared forearm pronation versus supination revealed contradictory results regarding which position was associated with superior outcomes. A meta-analysis comparing the various wrist and forearm positions failed to demonstrate statistically significant differences in the rates of loss of reduction or recasting/refabricating an orthosis between the groups. This analysis was limited by considerable heterogeneity in the data from the different studies.ConclusionsDespite the high incidence of DRFs, there is limited research on the optimal position of immobilization for conservative treatment of them. Available evidence suggests that the wrist should be immobilized in extension, as these patients had improved functional and radiographic outcomes. No conclusion can be drawn from the existing literature on ideal forearm position during immobilization. This review also suggests better data reporting practices for studies researching DRFs, so that future meta-analyses can be more comprehensive.Type of study/level of evidenceTherapeutic II.

Dataset Information

Duration of Cast Immobilization in Distal Radial Fractures: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Duration of Cast Immobilization in Distal Radial Fractures: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets