Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Conservative interventions for treating distal radial fractures in adults

  1. Helen HG Handoll1,*,
  2. Rajan Madhok2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group

Published Online: 22 APR 2003

Assessed as up-to-date: 21 AUG 2005

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000314


How to Cite

Handoll HHG, Madhok R. Conservative interventions for treating distal radial fractures in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD000314. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000314.

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of Teesside, Centre for Rehabilitation Sciences (CRS), Research Institute for Health Sciences and Social Care, Middlesborough, Tees Valley, UK

  2. 2

    University of Manchester, Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group, Manchester, UK

*Helen HG Handoll, Centre for Rehabilitation Sciences (CRS), Research Institute for Health Sciences and Social Care, University of Teesside, School of Health and Social Care, Middlesborough, Tees Valley, TS1 3BA, UK. h.handoll@tees.ac.uk. H.Handoll@ed.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 22 APR 2003

SEARCH

[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 1 Functional grading: poor or fair.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 2 Complications.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Manipulation versus control, Outcome 3 Cosmetic deformity.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 No immobilisation versus immobilisation, Outcome 1 Anatomical grading.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 No immobilisation versus immobilisation, Outcome 2 Functional grading.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 No immobilisation versus immobilisation, Outcome 3 Complications.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Cast position: supination versus pronation, Outcome 1 Anatomical displacement.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Cast position: supination versus pronation, Outcome 2 Functional grading.
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Cast position: supination versus pronation, Outcome 3 Complications.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Cast position: neutral (mid-way) versus pronation, Outcome 1 Anatomical displacement.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Cast position: neutral (mid-way) versus pronation, Outcome 2 Complications.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Palmar flexion or neutral versus dorsiflexion, Outcome 1 Functional grading: not excellent.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Palmar flexion or neutral versus dorsiflexion, Outcome 2 Functional grading: poor or fair.
[Analysis 5.3]
Analysis 5.3. Comparison 5 Palmar flexion or neutral versus dorsiflexion, Outcome 3 Complications.
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Modified cast restricted mobilisation versus plaster cast immobilisation, Outcome 1 Anatomical grading.
[Analysis 6.2]
Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 Modified cast restricted mobilisation versus plaster cast immobilisation, Outcome 2 Functional grading.
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Modified sugar-tong cast versus below-elbow cast, Outcome 1 Anatomical displacement.
[Analysis 7.2]
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Modified sugar-tong cast versus below-elbow cast, Outcome 2 Unacceptable anatomical result (dorsal tilt > 10 degrees, radial shortening > 5 mm).
[Analysis 7.3]
Analysis 7.3. Comparison 7 Modified sugar-tong cast versus below-elbow cast, Outcome 3 Complications.
[Analysis 8.1]
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Modified sugar-tong fibreglass splint versus cylindrical plaster cast, Outcome 1 Complications.
[Analysis 9.1]
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 Modified sugar-tong fibreglass splint versus volar-dorsal fibreglass splint, Outcome 1 Complications.
[Analysis 10.1]
Analysis 10.1. Comparison 10 Volar-dorsal fibreglass splint versus cylindrical plaster cast, Outcome 1 Complications.
[Analysis 11.1]
Analysis 11.1. Comparison 11 Above-elbow versus below-elbow plaster cast, Outcome 1 Anatomical grading.
[Analysis 11.2]
Analysis 11.2. Comparison 11 Above-elbow versus below-elbow plaster cast, Outcome 2 Functional grading: not excellent.
[Analysis 11.3]
Analysis 11.3. Comparison 11 Above-elbow versus below-elbow plaster cast, Outcome 3 Functional grading: poor or fair.
[Analysis 11.4]
Analysis 11.4. Comparison 11 Above-elbow versus below-elbow plaster cast, Outcome 4 Complications.
[Analysis 12.1]
Analysis 12.1. Comparison 12 Braced position: supination versus pronation, Outcome 1 Anatomical displacement.
[Analysis 12.2]
Analysis 12.2. Comparison 12 Braced position: supination versus pronation, Outcome 2 Anatomical grading: poor or fair.
[Analysis 12.3]
Analysis 12.3. Comparison 12 Braced position: supination versus pronation, Outcome 3 Functional grading.
[Analysis 13.1]
Analysis 13.1. Comparison 13 Braced position: supination versus other, Outcome 1 Anatomical grading.
[Analysis 13.2]
Analysis 13.2. Comparison 13 Braced position: supination versus other, Outcome 2 Poor finger flexion.
[Analysis 14.1]
Analysis 14.1. Comparison 14 Functional brace versus plaster cast, Outcome 1 Anatomical displacement (at splintage removal).
[Analysis 14.2]
Analysis 14.2. Comparison 14 Functional brace versus plaster cast, Outcome 2 Anatomical grading.
[Analysis 14.3]
Analysis 14.3. Comparison 14 Functional brace versus plaster cast, Outcome 3 Range of movement (at splintage removal).
[Analysis 14.4]
Analysis 14.4. Comparison 14 Functional brace versus plaster cast, Outcome 4 Range of movement (at 12 weeks).
[Analysis 14.5]
Analysis 14.5. Comparison 14 Functional brace versus plaster cast, Outcome 5 Poor finger flexion.
[Analysis 14.6]
Analysis 14.6. Comparison 14 Functional brace versus plaster cast, Outcome 6 Functional assessment score (0: no problems to 33: maximum).
[Analysis 14.7]
Analysis 14.7. Comparison 14 Functional brace versus plaster cast, Outcome 7 Functional grading: not excellent.
[Analysis 14.8]
Analysis 14.8. Comparison 14 Functional brace versus plaster cast, Outcome 8 Functional grading: poor or fair.
[Analysis 14.9]
Analysis 14.9. Comparison 14 Functional brace versus plaster cast, Outcome 9 Complications.
[Analysis 14.10]
Analysis 14.10. Comparison 14 Functional brace versus plaster cast, Outcome 10 Assessment of brace or cast use (visual analogue score: 0 to 10).
[Analysis 15.1]
Analysis 15.1. Comparison 15 Cast material: Polyurethane versus plaster, Outcome 1 Complications.
[Analysis 16.1]
Analysis 16.1. Comparison 16 Cast material: Thermoplastic versus plaster, Outcome 1 Complications.
[Analysis 17.1]
Analysis 17.1. Comparison 17 Cast material: Shrinkable polymer (Quickcast) versus fibreglass, Outcome 1 Anatomical displacement (at cast removal).
[Analysis 17.2]
Analysis 17.2. Comparison 17 Cast material: Shrinkable polymer (Quickcast) versus fibreglass, Outcome 2 Complications.
[Analysis 18.1]
Analysis 18.1. Comparison 18 Casting technique: Focused rigidity cast (FRC) versus standard cast, Outcome 1 Functional impairment.
[Analysis 18.2]
Analysis 18.2. Comparison 18 Casting technique: Focused rigidity cast (FRC) versus standard cast, Outcome 2 Complications.
[Analysis 19.1]
Analysis 19.1. Comparison 19 Early mobilisation (3-4 weeks) versus 5-6 weeks plaster immobilisation, Outcome 1 Pain (mild with stenuous use).
[Analysis 19.2]
Analysis 19.2. Comparison 19 Early mobilisation (3-4 weeks) versus 5-6 weeks plaster immobilisation, Outcome 2 Patient assessment (pain, disability, mobility): poor or fair.
[Analysis 19.3]
Analysis 19.3. Comparison 19 Early mobilisation (3-4 weeks) versus 5-6 weeks plaster immobilisation, Outcome 3 Grip strength (% of non-injured hand).
[Analysis 19.4]
Analysis 19.4. Comparison 19 Early mobilisation (3-4 weeks) versus 5-6 weeks plaster immobilisation, Outcome 4 Complications.
[Analysis 20.1]
Analysis 20.1. Comparison 20 Early mobilisation (1-2 weeks) versus 4-5 weeks immobilisation, Outcome 1 Mean VAS pain scores (none 0 - 20 cm).
[Analysis 20.2]
Analysis 20.2. Comparison 20 Early mobilisation (1-2 weeks) versus 4-5 weeks immobilisation, Outcome 2 Mean grip strength (mmHg).
[Analysis 20.3]
Analysis 20.3. Comparison 20 Early mobilisation (1-2 weeks) versus 4-5 weeks immobilisation, Outcome 3 Functional grading.
[Analysis 20.4]
Analysis 20.4. Comparison 20 Early mobilisation (1-2 weeks) versus 4-5 weeks immobilisation, Outcome 4 Complications.
[Analysis 20.5]
Analysis 20.5. Comparison 20 Early mobilisation (1-2 weeks) versus 4-5 weeks immobilisation, Outcome 5 Patient dislike of or non-compliance with treatment.
[Analysis 21.1]
Analysis 21.1. Comparison 21 Early mobilisation (1 week) versus 3 weeks plaster immobilisation, Outcome 1 Anatomical displacement.
[Analysis 21.2]
Analysis 21.2. Comparison 21 Early mobilisation (1 week) versus 3 weeks plaster immobilisation, Outcome 2 Functional grading: not excellent.
[Analysis 21.3]
Analysis 21.3. Comparison 21 Early mobilisation (1 week) versus 3 weeks plaster immobilisation, Outcome 3 Mean functional score (100 is normal).
[Analysis 21.4]
Analysis 21.4. Comparison 21 Early mobilisation (1 week) versus 3 weeks plaster immobilisation, Outcome 4 Complications.