Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Different methods of external fixation for treating distal radial fractures in adults

  1. Helen HG Handoll1,*,
  2. James S Huntley2,
  3. Rajan Madhok3

Editorial Group: Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group

Published Online: 23 JAN 2008

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006522.pub2


How to Cite

Handoll HHG, Huntley JS, Madhok R. Different methods of external fixation for treating distal radial fractures in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD006522. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006522.pub2.

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

    Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, University Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Edinburgh, UK

  3. 3

    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: 23 JAN 2008

SEARCH

[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 External fixator versus pins and plaster external fixation, Outcome 1 Functional grading: fair (or poor).
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 External fixator versus pins and plaster external fixation, Outcome 2 Subjective assessment of function.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 External fixator versus pins and plaster external fixation, Outcome 3 Grip strength (% or normal side).
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 External fixator versus pins and plaster external fixation, Outcome 4 Complications.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 External fixator versus pins and plaster external fixation, Outcome 5 Patient dissatisfaction with outcome.
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 External fixator versus pins and plaster external fixation, Outcome 6 Anatomical grading: fair or poor.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Non-bridging versus bridging external fixation, Outcome 1 DASH scores (0 to 100: most disability).
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Non-bridging versus bridging external fixation, Outcome 2 SF-12 physical domain scores (0 onwards; higher better: population mean = 50).
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Non-bridging versus bridging external fixation, Outcome 3 Grip strength (kg).
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Non-bridging versus bridging external fixation, Outcome 4 Mass grip strength (% of normal side).
[Analysis 2.5]
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Non-bridging versus bridging external fixation, Outcome 5 Residual pain.
[Analysis 2.6]
Analysis 2.6. Comparison 2 Non-bridging versus bridging external fixation, Outcome 6 Pain (VAS 0 to 100: worst).
[Analysis 2.7]
Analysis 2.7. Comparison 2 Non-bridging versus bridging external fixation, Outcome 7 Range of motion (degrees).
[Analysis 2.8]
Analysis 2.8. Comparison 2 Non-bridging versus bridging external fixation, Outcome 8 Range of motion (% of normal side).
[Analysis 2.9]
Analysis 2.9. Comparison 2 Non-bridging versus bridging external fixation, Outcome 9 Complications.
[Analysis 2.10]
Analysis 2.10. Comparison 2 Non-bridging versus bridging external fixation, Outcome 10 Patient dissatisfaction with outcome.
[Analysis 2.11]
Analysis 2.11. Comparison 2 Non-bridging versus bridging external fixation, Outcome 11 Anatomical displacement.
[Analysis 2.12]
Analysis 2.12. Comparison 2 Non-bridging versus bridging external fixation, Outcome 12 Anatomical measurements.
[Analysis 2.13]
Analysis 2.13. Comparison 2 Non-bridging versus bridging external fixation, Outcome 13 Deformity (structural).
[Analysis 2.14]
Analysis 2.14. Comparison 2 Non-bridging versus bridging external fixation, Outcome 14 Length of surgery (minutes).
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Supplementary percutanous pinning of distal radial fracture fragment, Outcome 1 Functional gradings.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Supplementary percutanous pinning of distal radial fracture fragment, Outcome 2 Grip strength (% of normal side).
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Supplementary percutanous pinning of distal radial fracture fragment, Outcome 3 Range of motion (% of normal side).
[Analysis 3.4]
Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 Supplementary percutanous pinning of distal radial fracture fragment, Outcome 4 Complications.
[Analysis 3.5]
Analysis 3.5. Comparison 3 Supplementary percutanous pinning of distal radial fracture fragment, Outcome 5 Ulnar plus variance.
[Analysis 3.6]
Analysis 3.6. Comparison 3 Supplementary percutanous pinning of distal radial fracture fragment, Outcome 6 Length of surgery (minutes).
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Hydroxyapatite coated versus standard pins, Outcome 1 Complications.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Hydroxyapatite coated versus standard pins, Outcome 2 Torque for insertion and removal of pins (Nmm).
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Dynamic versus static fixation, Outcome 1 Functional gradings.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Dynamic versus static fixation, Outcome 2 Mass grip strength (% of normal side).
[Analysis 5.3]
Analysis 5.3. Comparison 5 Dynamic versus static fixation, Outcome 3 Range of movement (% of normal side).
[Analysis 5.4]
Analysis 5.4. Comparison 5 Dynamic versus static fixation, Outcome 4 Complications.
[Analysis 5.5]
Analysis 5.5. Comparison 5 Dynamic versus static fixation, Outcome 5 Anatomical displacement.
[Analysis 5.6]
Analysis 5.6. Comparison 5 Dynamic versus static fixation, Outcome 6 Anatomical measurements.
[Analysis 5.7]
Analysis 5.7. Comparison 5 Dynamic versus static fixation, Outcome 7 Deformity (structural).