Purpose： Distal radial fracture is one of the most common fractures. Up to now, locking plates （LP） and external fixation （EF） are two conventional surgical approaches to type C radius fracture. Which method is s...Purpose： Distal radial fracture is one of the most common fractures. Up to now, locking plates （LP） and external fixation （EF） are two conventional surgical approaches to type C radius fracture. Which method is superior has not yet reached a consensus. We try to assess the clinical effectiveness of the two in- terventions by this meta-analysis. Methods： We used network to search the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Medical Library of randomized controlled clinical trials about the type C distal radius fractures performed according to the search strategy mentioned in Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0 from Jan. 2005 to Jan. 2016. Patients in the experimental group were used LP, in the control group were included EF and other surgical approaches. Publication language was restricted to English. Studies that patient population and surgical indication did not define had been excluded. Studies must report at least one of the outcomes as follow： radial inclination, patmar tilt, ulnar variance, range of wrist flexion and extension, and range of wrist supination and pronation. The trials in which participants included children were excluded. We used Jadad study scores to appraise the study. Results： Seven studies included 162 patients （LP group） and 190 patients （EF group）. We compared the radial inclination, palmar tilt, ulnar variance, range of wrist flexion and extension, and range of wrist supination and pronation. The radial inclination were revealed a difference favoring LP over EF [WMD = 1.84, 95% CI （0.17, 3.50）, p = 0.03] and the palmar tilt and ulnar variance was no significant difference between the two groups [（WMD = 3.61, 95% CI （0.00, 7.23）, p = 0.05; WMD = 0.05, 95% CI （-0.99,1.09）, p = 0.93]. The functional activities of range of flexion and extension and range of supination and pronation between the two groups was no difference [WMD = 10.04, 95% CI （-6.88, 26.96）, p = 0.24; WMD = 12.53, 95% CI （-9.99, 35.06）, p = 0.28]. Conclusion： Locking plate and external fixation is feasible to heal radius type C fracture. We found the small difference between the two groups on imaging examination. The locking plate has the advantage on maintaining reduction, however no significant difference regarding outcomes has been found be- tween the two groups.展开更多
文摘Purpose： Distal radial fracture is one of the most common fractures. Up to now, locking plates （LP） and external fixation （EF） are two conventional surgical approaches to type C radius fracture. Which method is superior has not yet reached a consensus. We try to assess the clinical effectiveness of the two in- terventions by this meta-analysis. Methods： We used network to search the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Medical Library of randomized controlled clinical trials about the type C distal radius fractures performed according to the search strategy mentioned in Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0 from Jan. 2005 to Jan. 2016. Patients in the experimental group were used LP, in the control group were included EF and other surgical approaches. Publication language was restricted to English. Studies that patient population and surgical indication did not define had been excluded. Studies must report at least one of the outcomes as follow： radial inclination, patmar tilt, ulnar variance, range of wrist flexion and extension, and range of wrist supination and pronation. The trials in which participants included children were excluded. We used Jadad study scores to appraise the study. Results： Seven studies included 162 patients （LP group） and 190 patients （EF group）. We compared the radial inclination, palmar tilt, ulnar variance, range of wrist flexion and extension, and range of wrist supination and pronation. The radial inclination were revealed a difference favoring LP over EF [WMD = 1.84, 95% CI （0.17, 3.50）, p = 0.03] and the palmar tilt and ulnar variance was no significant difference between the two groups [（WMD = 3.61, 95% CI （0.00, 7.23）, p = 0.05; WMD = 0.05, 95% CI （-0.99,1.09）, p = 0.93]. The functional activities of range of flexion and extension and range of supination and pronation between the two groups was no difference [WMD = 10.04, 95% CI （-6.88, 26.96）, p = 0.24; WMD = 12.53, 95% CI （-9.99, 35.06）, p = 0.28]. Conclusion： Locking plate and external fixation is feasible to heal radius type C fracture. We found the small difference between the two groups on imaging examination. The locking plate has the advantage on maintaining reduction, however no significant difference regarding outcomes has been found be- tween the two groups.
