Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Closed reduction methods 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: 20 JAN 2003

Assessed as up-to-date: 14 JUN 2007

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003763


How to Cite

Handoll HHG, Madhok R. Closed reduction methods for treating distal radial fractures in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD003763. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003763.

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: 20 JAN 2003

SEARCH

[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Finger trap traction versus manual traction, Outcome 1 Failed reduction (unacceptable position).
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Finger trap traction versus manual traction, Outcome 2 Difficulty of reduction (visual analogue scale: 0 (none) to 10 cm (impossible)).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Finger trap traction versus manual traction, Outcome 3 Continuing acceptable position at 5 weeks (Note, positive outcome).
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Manual reduction with active patient versus manual reduction + anaesthesia (IVRA), Outcome 1 Post-reduction radiological measurements.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Manual reduction with active patient versus manual reduction + anaesthesia (IVRA), Outcome 2 Failed reduction: unchanged radiological position.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Manual reduction with active patient versus manual reduction + anaesthesia (IVRA), Outcome 3 Increased pain during reduction.
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Manual reduction with active patient versus manual reduction + anaesthesia (IVRA), Outcome 4 Increased or unchanged pain during reduction.
[Analysis 2.5]
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Manual reduction with active patient versus manual reduction + anaesthesia (IVRA), Outcome 5 Redislocation by 10 days.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Dynamic mechanical traction versus manual reduction + haematoma block, Outcome 1 Post-reduction radiological measurements.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Dynamic mechanical traction versus manual reduction + haematoma block, Outcome 2 Severe pain during reduction.
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Dynamic mechanical traction versus manual reduction + haematoma block, Outcome 3 Neurological complications.