The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2008;90:1855-1861.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.01569
© 2008 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the activities for this article:
 CME 3: July, August, September 2008 (publication date October 3, 2008; expi...
Trauma Test 23: Fall 2008 (publication date November 14, 2008; expiration d...
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Koval, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Weinstein, J. N.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Koval, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Weinstein, J. N.
Related Collections
Right arrow Hand/Wrist
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Fractures of the Distal Part of the Radius

The Evolution of Practice Over Time. Where's the Evidence?

Kenneth J. Koval, MD1, John J. Harrast, MS2, Jeffrey O. Anglen, MD3 and James N. Weinstein, DO, MS1

1 Department of Orthopaedics, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, 1 Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756. E-mail address for K.J. Koval: kjkmd{at}yahoo.com
2 930 York Road, Suite 102, Hinsdale, IL 60521
3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Indiana University, 541 Clinical Drive, Suite 600, Indianapolis, IN 46202
Investigation performed at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire

Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.

A video supplement to this article will be available from the Video Journal of Orthopaedics. A video clip will be available at the JBJS web site, www.jbjs.org. The Video Journal of Orthopaedics can be contacted at (805) 962-3410, web site: www.vjortho.com.

A commentary is available with the electronic versions of this article, on our web site (www.jbjs.org) and on our quarterly CD-ROM/DVD (call our subscription department, at 781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM or DVD).

Background: During the administration of the oral (Part II) examinations for the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery over the past nine years, it has been observed that orthopaedic surgeons are opting more often for open treatment as opposed to percutaneous fixation of distal radial fractures. Evidence to support this change in treatment is thought to be deficient. The present study was designed to identify changes in practice patterns regarding operative fixation of distal radial fractures between 1999 and 2007 and to assess the results of those treatments over time.

Methods: As a part of the certification process, Part II candidates submit a six-month case list to the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery. In the present study, we searched the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II database to evaluate changes in treatment over time and to identify available outcomes and associated complications of open and percutaneous fixation of distal radial fractures. All distal radial fractures that had been treated surgically over a nine-year period (1999 to 2007) were reviewed. The fractures were categorized according to fixation method with use of surgeon self-reported surgical procedure codes. Comparisons of percentage treatment type by year were made. Utilization was analyzed by geographic region, and open and percutaneous fixation were compared with regard to complications and outcomes as self-reported by candidates during the online application process.

Results: The proportion of fractures that were stabilized with open surgical treatment increased from 42% in 1999 to 81% in 2007 (p < 0.0001). Although the differences were small, surgeon-reported outcomes revealed that a higher percentage of patients who had been managed with percutaneous fixation had no pain and normal function but some deformity as compared with patients who had had open treatment. Patients who had been managed with percutaneous fixation had a higher overall complication rate (14.0% compared with 12.3%; p < 0.006) and a higher rate of infection (5.0% compared with 2.6%; p < 0.0001) than those who had been managed with open treatment. Patients who had had open treatment had a higher rate of nerve palsy and/or injury (2.0% compared with 1.2%; p = 0.001). No other differences in the reported complication rates were found between the two techniques.

Conclusions: A striking shift in fixation strategy for distal radial fractures occurred over the past decade among younger orthopaedic surgeons in the United States. These changes occurred despite a lack of improvement in surgeon-perceived functional outcomes.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?