Orthopaedic Journal of MP Chapter

Publisher: Madhya Pradesh Orthopaedic Association www.mpioa.com
E-ISSN:2582-7243, P-ISSN:2320-6993
2019 Volume 25 Number 2 Jul-Dec

Outcome of Fracture Distal End of Radius Treated By Non-Bridging External Fixator

Sharma JK1*, Shrivastava S2

1* Jay Kumar Sharma, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Ruxmaniben Deepchand Gardi Medical College, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, India.

2 S Shrivastava, Department of Orthopaedics, Ruxmaniben Deepchand Gardi Medical College, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Background: Fractures of the distal radius are among commonly encountered problems, which need optimal reduction and early rehabilitation, to provide early functional independence. Non-bridging external fixation which is relatively easy to apply, versatile, maintains reduction and allows early joint mobilization. Thus we analysed the utility of non-bridging external fixator in fractures of distal end radius in terms of functional and radiological outcome in the rural Indian population.

Material and Methods: This prospective study is done in 22 patients (24 cases) of fresh fractures of distal end radius either extra or intra-articular. All patients were treated with non-bridging external fixator and were assessed for outcome functionally by DASH score, for union and radiological parameters.

Results: Average age of patients was 47.27 years. Mean flexion-extension arc was 147° (73° flexion and 74° extension), mean pronation-supination arc was 164° (79° supination and 85° pronation) and adduction and abduction was 32° and 11° respectively at 16 weeks post-operatively. The average radial angle restored post operatively to 18.93° (range 12.7° to 25°). The average radial length restored to 11.68 mm (range 8 mm to 14.4 mm). The average volar angle restored post treatment was 7.61° (range 3.4° to 15°). The average DASH score at 16 weeks was 9.92 (range 0.9 to 14.2).

Conclusion: Non-bridging external fixator in treatment of the distal radius fractures is an effective method of treatment, which can give excellent results in terms of functional and radiological outcome.

Keywords: Fracture distal end radius, Non-bridging external fixator, Fracture lower end radius

Corresponding Author How to Cite this Article To Browse
Jay Kumar Sharma, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Ruxmaniben Deepchand Gardi Medical College, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Email:
Sharma JK, Shrivastava S, Outcome of Fracture Distal End of Radius Treated By Non-Bridging External Fixator. ojmpc. 2019;25(2):67-71.
Available From
https://ojmpc.com/index.php/ojmpc/article/view/86
Manuscript Received Review Round 1 Review Round 2 Review Round 3 Accepted
2019-12-07 2019-12-13 2019-12-19 2019-12-25 2019-12-31
Conflict of Interest Funding Ethical Approval Plagiarism X-checker Note
Authors state no conflict of interest. Non Funded. The conducted research is not related to either human or animals use. 11.11 All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

© 2019by Sharma JK, Shrivastava Sand Published by Madhya Pradesh Orthopaedic Association. This is an Open Access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ unported [CC BY NC 4.0].

Introduction

Fractures of the distal radius involving the metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction are among commonly encountered problems by orthopaedic surgeons. A good outcome demands optimal reduction and maintenance to provide early functional independence without potential complications.

Despite the recognized growth of internal fixation, external fixation has maintained a role in the treatment of distal radius fractures because of its relative ease in application, versatility and reduced effects on the pericarpal soft tissues. The concept of non-bridging external fixator for distal radius fractures was first given by M. M. McQueen in 1998, subsequently procedural and technologic advancements have established its utility [1,2]. Few studies have been done on outcome of non-bridging external fixators in these fractures [3-11].

The purpose of this prospective randomised study was to analyse the utility of non-bridging external fixator in fractures of distal end radius in terms of functional and radiological outcome in the rural Indian population.

Material and Methods

This prospective study for assessment of the outcome of treatment of distal end radius with non-bridging external fixator is carried out from July 2010 to April 2012 at our institute after approval of the Ethical committee.

Three hundred and forty nine cases of fracture distal end radius attending the outpatient department were registered, 23 of these cases who met the inclusion criteria were treated with non-bridging external fixator and included in the study. One case was lost at follow up.

Thus 22 patients (24 radius – 2 bilateral), who were followed for a minimum of 6 months and whose data have been analysed for final conclusion formed the cohort. All patients more than 18 years and with less than 3 days old dorsally displaced distal radius fractures either extra or intra-articular with minimum 2 large articular fragments and dorsal angulations of >10o and/or radial shortening of more than equal to 5 mm, simple or grade 1 compound, were included in the study.

Patients having associated fracture ulna shaft, tendon injury, carpal injury or neuro-vascular involvement, were excluded from study. After proper clinical evaluation and standard radiological assessment fractures were classified as per Frykman’s classification system, mainly due to its better intra-observer reproducibility as compared with other systems [2].

All patients were admitted and after a preoperative workup, informed written consent and pre-anaesthetic check-up, were posted for the procedure. Standard preoperative surgical protocol and time out under appropriate anaesthesia four Schanz pins (2 pins proximally to fracture in shaft and 2 pin distally in the distal fragment) were inserted dorsolaterally and dorsomedially.

Care was taken to avoid tendon injury or penetration. After that fracture was reduced and confirmed fluoroscopically and the fixator frame application was completed (Figure 1).

Postoperatively, patient’s limb was kept elevated and active finger movements encouraged. Further shoulder, elbow and wrist, active and passive movements were started from day one as per the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Guidelines [12]. Patients were followed up regularly (2, 4, 6 and 16 weeks).

Patients were assessed both clinically and on radiographs. The external fixator was removed at 6 weeks, when bridging callus was seen in at least three cortices in two views and clinically there was no pain / tenderness at fracture site. Objective clinical assessment included range of motion of the wrist as measured in all the six planes with the help of a goniometer and grip strengths measurement on both sides.

Standard anterio-posterior and lateral X-rays were taken at each follow up to assess the position of the fracture fragments, union status and for measurements of parameters by like radial length, radial angle and volar angle. DASH questionnaire was used for functional assessment. Complications, if any were noted and suitably dealt. The data thus obtained were statistically analysed using Chi square and student t-test on SPSS (Statistical Presentation System Software) for Windows version 17.

Results

Out of 22 patients enrolled, 13 were males and 9 females with a dominant hand injury in 16, 4 had injury in non-dominant limb and bilateral involvement in 2 cases. The average age of patients was 47.27 years.

Out of 22, 3 (13%) had a Frykman’s type I fracture, 9 (41%) had a type II, 4 (18%) had type III, 4 (18%) had type IV injury and 2 (10%) had type VI injury. Four had associated ulnar styloid fracture. The Flexion-Extension arc at the different follow up was analysed, there was an average change from 73° (36.2° flexion and 32.7° extension) at the 1st follow up at 2 weeks to 147° (73° flexion and 74° extension) at 16 weeks. Similarly the improvement in Pronation-Supination arc was 107° (48° supination and 59° pronation) at 2 weeks, which improved to 164° (79° supination and 85° pronation) over the period of 16 weeks.

Adduction and Abduction improved from 22° and 8° respectively at 2 weeks to 32° and 11° respectively at 16 weeks post-operative (Figure 1).

Improvement in range of movement improvement in the patients on 4th week and 16th weeks on applying the paired t-test reveals a statistically significant change in the outcome with less than 0.0001 for Flexion – Extension, 0.004 for Abduction – Adduction and 0.001 for Pronation – Supination (Figure 2). The average radial angle restored post operatively to 18.93° (range 12.7° to 25°). The average radial length restored to 11.68 mm (range 8 mm to 14.4 mm).


The average volar angle restored post treatment was 7.61° (range 3.4° to 15°). The radial length and volar angle observations were statistically significant.

The average DASH score at 4 weeks was 24.82 (range 10.3 to 40) and at 16 weeks was 9.92 (range 0.9 to 14.2). The DASH score comparison using the paired t- test reveals a statistically significant change over for 4 weeks to 16 weeks period.

Discussion

Fractures of distal radius are more common injuries predominantly, in females and in 6th decade [3-7]. In our study there is predominance of males and in 5th decade. We analysed the results of non-bridging external fixator in treatment of the distal radius fractures in 24 cases.

The operative protocol and the reduction technique was uniform in all the patients; but the anaesthesia protocol varied as per the anaesthetist preferences, using general anaesthesia, regional nerve blocks or Bier’s block. Post-operatively patients getting Bier’s block and the nerve blocks had a better immediate pain relief due to the residual effect of the drug, against the patients who received general anaesthesia, who required more analgesics [8].

Bier’s block according to the literature is the most preferred modalities of anaesthesia, due to the low cost and excellent post-operative analgesia [9,10]. The flexion-extension arc achieved at the end of 6 weeks and 4 months was 124° and 147° respectively which reveals significant difference of value when compared to 105° and 127° respectively achieved in the study of Lozano-Calderón et al [13].

The results obtained in our study are early results which are clinically comparable with studies having achieved movements at 1 year after the trauma [3,14,15]. Early starting of the range of motion exercises should have an advantageous role in early healing, just as axial micro-motion has in distraction histogenesis. This has also been established in the study of Smith and David Slutsky [15,16].

The radiological assessment in the literature reveals improvement of the volar angle when non-bridging fixators are used [1,17,18]. The present series observations are consistent with the literature and reveal improvement in the radiological parameters [3-11].

The overall functional outcome as assed with DASH scoring system has showed statistically significant improvement, with score improving from 4 weeks to 4 months. The most common complications encountered were wrist pain and radial subsidence. In addition, two cases have pin tract infection and subsequent loosening, which was treated by dressing and antibiotics. The incidence of wrist pain was 18.18% and located on the ulnar side noted during performance of heavy activity. The incidence of pain, as reported in literature varies from 10% to 57% in different studies [12,19,20]. Three of our four patients who had associated ulnar styloid fracture continued to have wrist pain even after 16 weeks on ulnar side.

There was loss of the radial height in 4 patients (range 2 to 6 mm) with maximum of 6 mm shortening in a 75 years old male, graded as grade 3 with articular incongruities according to the Kirk and Jupiter [21]. This patient also had pin tract infection leading to swelling and progressing into Sudeck’s osteodystrophy with poor functions requiring additional management. This is probably attributable to the fact that fixator configuration was supported by indigenously single bent rod connecting pins in two planes, and with early rehabilitation, excessive stress on the pins in osteoporotic bone lead to loosening, fixation failure and radial collapse.

Extensor tendon injuries are common complications of the non-bridging fixators due to the fact the distal pins go through the extensor compartment of the wrist as reported to be 10% by McQueen and 6.7 % by Krishnan [1, 22]. In our study we noted going through the tendons of extensor indicis on one occasion, but the complication was diagnosed on the table by doing passive finger and thumb movement (table 1). These patients developed pain on movement which subsided in 2 weeks. None of the patient had tendon rupture in our study. The reported incidence of tendon rupture in distal radius fracture is 0.9% due to the bony spikes at the distal fracture fragment [23].

In our series, finger stiffness and sudeck’s osteodystrophy was seen in less than 5% (one case), who was non-compliant for the physiotherapy, the subsequent stiffness persisted even at 6 weeks. By the 16 weeks follow up the stiffness was reduced but the grip strength was nearly 75% of the dominant hand. The incidence of finger stiffness and Sudeck’s Osteodystrophy reported in literature was is 0 to 31% and 0 to 6 % respectively [24,25] which increases with increasing traction.

Figure 1: Pre operative AP (a) and lateral (b) view and post-operative AP (c) and lateral (d) view radiograph showing fracture distal end radius which was treated with non-bridging external fixator. Final follow-up clinical photos (e and f) and AP view (g) of the same patient showing excellent results.
ojmpc_86_01.jpg


Figure 2: Improvement of range of movement with time
ojmpc_86_02.jpg

Table 1:List of complications

ComplicationFrequency
Finger Stiffness1/22
Pin Tract Infection4/22
Sudeck’s Osteodystrophy1/22
Wrist pain3/22
Compression neuropathy0/22
Pin Breakage0/22
Schanz Pin loosening1/22
Superficial Radial Nerve Palsy0/22
Iatrogenic Tendon Injury1/22
Loss of Radial Length4/22

Conclusion

Non-bridging external fixator in treatment of the distal radius fractures is an effective method of treatment, which can give excellent results in terms of functional and radiological outcome.

References

1. Mcqueen MM. Redisplaced unstable fractures of the distal non-bridging external Fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(4):665-9. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

2. Belloti JC, Tamaoki MJ, Franciozi CE, Santos JB, Balbachevsky D, Chap Chap E, et al. Are distal radius fracture classifications reproducible? Intra and interobserver agreement. Sao Paulo Med J. 2008;126(3):180–5. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

3. Blakeney WG. Stabilization and treatment of Colles fractures in elderly patients. Clin Interv Aging. 2010;5:337–44. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

4. Clement ND, Aitken S, Duckworth AD, McQueen MM, Court-Brown CM. Multiple fractures in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(2):231–6. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

5. Kamiloski V, Kasapinova K, Micic I. Unstable distal radius fractures in elderly patients - operate or not ? Acta Fac Med Naiss. 2006;23(4):185–9. . [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

6. Singh PK, Shrivastva S, Dulani R. Outcome of management of distal radius fractures in postmenopausal women: experience from rural India. Nigerian J Orthop Trauma. 2011;10(1):43–6. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

7. Kwon BC, Seo BK, Im HJ, Baek GH. Clinical and radiographic factors associated with distal radioulnar joint instability in distal radius fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(11):3171-9. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

8. Gofton W, Liew A. Distal Radius Fractures : Nonoperative and per-cutaneous pinning treatment options. Orthop Clin North Am. 2006;38(2):175–85. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

9. Graham CA, Gibson AJ, Goutcher CM, Scollon D. Anaesthesia for the management of distal radius fractures in adults in Scottish hospitals. Eur J Emerg Med. 1997;4(4):210-2. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

10. Mirza A, Reinhart MK, Bove JJ. Treatment of distal radius fractures with a nonbridging cross-pin fixator (the CPX system). Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg 2009;13(2):104–9. . [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

11. Fernandez DL. Fractures of the distal radius: Operative treatment. Instr Course Lect. 1993;42:73–88. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

12. Lichtman DM, Bindra RR, Boyer MI, et al. American academy of orthopaedic surgeons clinical practice guideline on the treatment of distal radius fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;20;93(8):775-8. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

13. Lozano-Calderón SA, Souer S, Mudgal C, Jupiter JB, Ring D. Wrist mobilization following volar plate fixation of fractures of the distal part of the radius. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(6):1297–304. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

14. Arora R, Lutz M, Hennerbichler A, Krappinger D, MD DE, Gabl M. Complications following internal fixation of unstable distal radius fracture with a palmar locking plate. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(5);316-22. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

15. Smith DW, Henry MH. Volar fixed-angle plating of the distal radius. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005;13(1):28–36. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

16. Slutsky DJ. External fixation of distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg. 2007;32(10):1624–37. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

17. Atroshi I, Brogren E, Larsson G-U, Kloow J, Hofer M, Berggren AM. Wrist bridging versus non-bridging external fixation for displaced distal radius fractures: A randomized assessor-blind clinical trial of 38 patients followed for 1 year. Acta Orthop. 2006;77(3):445–53. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

18. Krishnan J, Wigg Aer, Walker Rw, Slavotinek J. Intra-articular fractures of the distal radius: a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing static bridging and dynamic non-bridging external fixation. J Hand Surg Br. 2003;28 (5):417–21. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

19. Rampoldi M, Palombi D, Tagliente D. Distal radius fractures with diaphyseal involvement: fixation with fixed angle volar plate. J Orthop Trauma. 2011;12(3):137–43. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]


20. Handoll HH, Huntley JS, Madhok R. External fixation versus conservative treatment for distal radial fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18;(3):CD006194. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

21. Knirk, Jupiter JB. Intra-articular fractures of the distal radius in young adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68(5):647–59. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

22. Handoll HH, Vaghela MV, Madhok R. Percutaneous pinning for treating distal radial fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18;(3):CD006080. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

23. Cooney WP, Dobyns JH, Linscheid RL. Complications of colles’ fractures. J bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62(4):613–9. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

24. Turner RG, Faber KJ, Athwal GS. Complications of distal radius fractures. Orthop Clin North Am 2007;38:217–28. . [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

25. Atkins Rm, Duckworth T, Kanis JA. Features of algodystrophy after colles’ fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72(1):105–10. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

Disclaimer / Publisher's Note

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of Journals and/or the editor(s). Journals and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.