Search

Purpose For displaced distal radius fracture, this trial aimed to compare an above-elbow (AE) and below-elbow (BE) cast at the end of a 24-week follow-up using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire as a primary outcome. Methods This is a clinical trial with parallel groups (1:1) and a blinded evaluator. There are two non-surgical interventions: AE and BE. A total of 128 adult patients with acute (up to 7 days) displaced distal radius fracture of type A2-3, C1-3 by the AO classification were included. The follow-up was 24 weeks. The primary outcome was the DASH questionnaire at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were the maintenance of reduction by the evaluation of radiographic parameters, pain measured by VAS, PRWE, objective functional evaluation and rate of adverse effects. Results The difference between the two groups in the DASH score at 24 weeks was not significant, with the mean (95% CI) DASH score being AE: 9.44 (2.70 to 16.17) vs. BE: 9.88 (3.19 to 16.57) (p = 0.895). The above-elbow group had a significantly greater worsening of the mean DASH score from baseline to 2 weeks (p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups in any of the other follow-up assessments. Objective functional evaluation, PRWE, radiographical measures and rates of reduction loss were similar between groups. Above-elbow casting resulted in more adverse effects (mostly shoulder pain; 19 events vs. 9 events); RR = 0.39 (0.19–0.94); p = 0.033 at the end of six-month follow-up. Conclusions This study did not demonstrate a difference between above-elbow and below-elbow cast in terms of DASH outcome at 6 months in non-surgical treatment of deviated distal radius fractures. However, below-elbow casting is less debilitating during the treatment period, has comparable performance in maintaining the reduction, and is related to fewer minor adverse effects than above-elbow casting.

BackgroundMany systematic reviews (SRs) have been published about the various treatments for distal radius fractures (DRF). The heterogeneity of SRs results may come from the misuse of SR methods, and literature overviews have demonstrated that SRs should be considered with caution as they may not always be synonymous with high-quality standards. Our objective is to evaluate the quality of published SRs on the treatment of DRF through these tools.MethodsThe methods utilized in this review were previously published in the PROSPERO database. We considered SRs of surgical and nonsurgical interventions for acute DRF in adults. A comprehensive search strategy was performed in the MEDLINE database (inception to May 2017) and we manually searched the grey literature for non-indexed research. Data were independently extracted by two authors. We assessed SR internal validity and reporting using AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes). Scores were calculated as the sum of reported items. We also extracted article characteristics and provided Spearman's correlation measurements.ResultsForty-one articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The mean score for PRISMA was 15.90 (CI 95%, 13.9-17.89) and AMSTAR was 6.48 (CI 95% 5.72-7.23). SRs that considered only RCTs had better AMSTAR [7.56 (2.1) vs. 5.62 (2.3); p = 0.014] and PRISMA scores [18.61 (5.22) vs. 13.93 (6.47), p = 0.027]. The presence of meta-analysis on the SRs altered PRISMA scores [19.17 (4.75) vs. 10.21 (4.51), p = 0.001] and AMSTAR scores [7.68 (1.9) vs. 4.39 (1.66), p = 0.001]. Journal impact factor or declaration of conflict of interest did not change PRISMA and AMSTAR scores. We found substantial inter observer agreement for PRISMA (0.82, 95% CI 0.62-0.94; p = 0.01) and AMSTAR (0.65, 95% CI 0.43-0.81; p = 0.01), and moderate correlation between PRISMA and AMSTAR scores (0.83, 95% CI 0.62-0.92; p = 0.01).ConclusionsDRF RCT-only SRs have better PRISMA and AMSTAR scores. These tools have substantial inter-observer agreement and moderate inter-tool correlation. We exposed the current research panorama and pointed out some factors that can contribute to improvements on the topic.

INTRODUCTION: Previous reviews have demonstrated that patient outcomes following orthopaedic surgery are strongly influenced by the presence of Workers' Compensation. However, the variability in the reviews' methodology may have inflated the estimated strength of this association. The main objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the influence of Workers' Compensation on the outcomes of orthopaedic surgical procedures. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature published in this area from 1992-2012, with no language restrictions. The following databases were used MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Google Scholar, LILACS and Pubmed. We also hand-searched the reference sections of all selected papers. We included all prospective studies evaluating the effect of compensation status on outcomes in adult patients who had undergone surgery due to orthopaedic conditions or diseases. Outcomes of interest included disease specific, region specific and/or overall quality of life scales/questionnaires and surgeons' personal judgment of the results. We used an assessment tool to appraise the quality of all included studies. We used Review Manager to create forest plots to summarize study data and funnel plots for the assessment of publication bias. RESULTS: Twenty studies met our eligibility criteria. The overall risk ratio for experiencing an unsatisfactory result after orthopaedic surgery for patients with compensation compared to non-compensated patients is 2.08 (95% CI 1.54-2.82). A similar association was shown for continuous data extracted from the studies using assessment scales or questionnaires (Standard Mean Difference = -0.70 95% CI -0.97- -0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who undergo orthopaedic surgical procedures, those receiving Workers' Compensation experience a two-fold greater risk of a negative outcome. Our findings show a considerably lower estimate of risk compared to previous reviews that include retrospective data. Further research is warranted to determine the etiological explanation for the influence of compensation status on patient outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42012002121.