We have located links that may give you full text access.
Complications following open reduction and internal fixation versus external fixation in treating unstable distal radius fractures: Grading the evidence through a meta-analysis.
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery & Research : OTSR 2018 Februrary
BACKGROUND: The common fixation techniques for unstable distal radius fractures include open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and closed reduction and external fixation (EF). There is controversy over the choice of surgical approach in treating unstable distal radius fractures.
HYPOTHESIS: This meta-analysis was performed to compare complication rates in patients treated with ORIF or EF for unstable distal radius fractures and to develop GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation)-based recommendations for using the procedures to treat unstable distal radius fractures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of all the studies published was conducted using the Pubmed, ScienceDirect, Embase, BIOSIS, Springer, Cochrane Library databases. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ORIF with EF in treating adult patients with unstable distal radius fractures and provided data regarding the complication were identified. The demographic characteristics and adverse events were manually extracted from all of the included studies. RevMan 5.1 was used for data analysis. PRISMA guidelines were followed.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies that included a total of 1280 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with ORIF, EF results in higher incidence of total complications, infection and malunion. The overall GRADE system evidence quality was very low, which reduces our confidence in the recommendations of this system.
DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis indicates that ORIF and EF are both effective procedures for treating unstable distal radius fractures. ORIF may be superior to EF in the treatment of unstable distal radius fractures. Because of the low quality evidence currently available, high-quality RCTs are required.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II: low-powered prospective randomized trial meta-analysis.
HYPOTHESIS: This meta-analysis was performed to compare complication rates in patients treated with ORIF or EF for unstable distal radius fractures and to develop GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation)-based recommendations for using the procedures to treat unstable distal radius fractures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of all the studies published was conducted using the Pubmed, ScienceDirect, Embase, BIOSIS, Springer, Cochrane Library databases. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ORIF with EF in treating adult patients with unstable distal radius fractures and provided data regarding the complication were identified. The demographic characteristics and adverse events were manually extracted from all of the included studies. RevMan 5.1 was used for data analysis. PRISMA guidelines were followed.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies that included a total of 1280 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with ORIF, EF results in higher incidence of total complications, infection and malunion. The overall GRADE system evidence quality was very low, which reduces our confidence in the recommendations of this system.
DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis indicates that ORIF and EF are both effective procedures for treating unstable distal radius fractures. ORIF may be superior to EF in the treatment of unstable distal radius fractures. Because of the low quality evidence currently available, high-quality RCTs are required.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II: low-powered prospective randomized trial meta-analysis.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app