Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2022; 57(04): 619-628
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1726062
Artigo Original
Mão

Determining the Borderline Anatomical Parameters for Better Functional Outcome of Colles Fracture: A Prospective Study[*]

Article in several languages: português | English
Tapasa Kumar Panigrahi 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia, S. C. B. Medical College and Hospital, Cutack, Odisha, Índia
,
Satyajeet Ray 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia, S. C. B. Medical College and Hospital, Cutack, Odisha, Índia
,
Manoranjan Mallik 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia, S. C. B. Medical College and Hospital, Cutack, Odisha, Índia
,
Ramesh Chandra Maharaj 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia, S. C. B. Medical College and Hospital, Cutack, Odisha, Índia
,
Jugaratna Khatua 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia, S. C. B. Medical College and Hospital, Cutack, Odisha, Índia
,
Debi Prasad Nanda 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia, S. C. B. Medical College and Hospital, Cutack, Odisha, Índia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The treatment of Colles fracture can deform the wrist. Some studies claim the resulting deformity rarely hinders daily activities, whereas others report the opposite; thus, anatomical reduction is desirable. Our objective was to analyze the anatomical and functional results of Colles fracture to find out the values of individual parameters corresponding to the best functional outcome.

Methods The present prospective study included 70 elderly patients with Colles fracture. All patients were managed conservatively. The anatomical parameters were evaluated by measuring dorsal angulation, radial inclination, and radial height, and they were assessed as per Stewart et al. The functional result was assessed by the Mayo wrist score. The results were analyzed using the chi-squared test of association, and a p-value < 0.001 was considered statistically significant and to examine strengths of associations; we computed odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results Excellent and good results were obtained in 68.5% of the cases anatomically and 78.5% functionally, which was statistically significant (p = 0.0009). Out of the three anatomical parameter dorsal angulation < 10° and loss of radial inclination < 9° showed statistically significant association with functional results (p = 0.0006), but loss of radial height < 6 mm did not (p = 0.0568), which became significant when loss of radial height was kept < 4 mm (p = 0.00062).

Conclusion Fractures with anatomical reduction have better functional results. The acceptable borderline anatomical parameters for obtaining excellent or good functional results are dorsal angulation < 10°, loss of radial inclination < 9°, and loss of radial height < 4 mm.

Keywords

Colle's fracture - conservative treatment/methods - aged

Financial Support

There was no financial support from public, commercial, or non-profit sources.


* Work developed at the Department of Orthopedics, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cutack, Odisha, India.




Publication History

Received: 29 July 2020

Accepted: 28 October 2020

Article published online:
05 May 2021

© 2021. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: A review. Injury 2006; 37 (08) 691-697
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Brogren E, Petranek M, Atroshi I. Incidence and characteristics of distal radius fractures in a southern Swedish region. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2007; 8: 48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hesp R, Klenerman L, Page L. Decreased radial bone mass in Colles' fracture. Acta Orthop Scand 1984; 55 (05) 573-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Summers K, Fowles SM. Colles' Fracture. [Updated 2020 Jan 18]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020. Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK553071/
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Edward A. Perez. Perez. Fractures of the shoulder, arm and forearm. In: Frederick M, Azar MD. editors. Campbell's operative orthopaedics. 13th ed.. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2017: 2994
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Gartland Jr JJ, Werley CW. Evaluation of healed Colles' fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1951; 33-A (04) 895-907
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mackenney PJ, McQueen MM, Elton R. Prediction of instability in distal radial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (09) 1944-1951
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Cassebaum WH. Colles' fracture; a study of end results. J Am Med Assoc 1950; 143 (11) 963-965
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Golden GN. Treatment and prognosis of Colles' fracture. Lancet 1963; 1 (7280): 511-515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Finsen V, Rod O, Rød K, Rajabi B, Alm-Paulsen PS, Russwurm H. The relationship between displacement and clinical outcome after distal radius (Colles') fracture. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2013; 38 (02) 116-126
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Wolfe SW. Distal Radius Fractures. In: Wolfe SW, Pederson WC, Cohen Mark S. editors. Green's Operative Hand Surgery. 7th ed.. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2017: 530
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Bilić R, Ruzić L, Zdravković V, Boljević Z, Kovjanić J. Reliability of different methods of determination of radial shortening. Influence of ulnar and palmar tilt. J Hand Surg [Br] 1995; 20 (01) 97-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Stewart HD, Innes AR, Burke FD. Functional cast-bracing for Colles' fractures. A comparison between cast-bracing and conventional plaster casts. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1984; 66 (05) 749-753
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cooney WP, Bussey R, Dobyns JH, Linscheid RL. Difficult wrist fractures. Perilunate fracture-dislocations of the wrist. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; (214) 136-147
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Chung KC, Cho HE, Kim Y, Kim HM, Shauver MJ. WRIST Group. Assessment of Anatomic Restoration of Distal Radius Fractures Among Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3 (01) e1919433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Perez EA. Fractures of the shoulder, arm and forearm. In: Azar FM, Canale ST, Beaty JH. editors. Campbell's operative orthopaedics. 13th ed.. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2017: 2993
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Mishra PK, Nagar M, Gaur SC, Gupta A. Morphometry of distal end radius in the Indian population: A radiological study. Indian J Orthop 2016; 50 (06) 610-615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dario P, Matteo G, Carolina C. et al. Is it really necessary to restore radial anatomic parameters after distal radius fractures?. Injury 2014; 45 (Suppl. 06) S21-S26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Arora R, Lutz M, Deml C, Krappinger D, Haug L, Gabl M. A prospective randomized trial comparing nonoperative treatment with volar locking plate fixation for displaced and unstable distal radial fractures in patients sixty-five years of age and older. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (23) 2146-2153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Anzarut A, Johnson JA, Rowe BH, Lambert RG, Blitz S, Majumdar SR. Radiologic and patient-reported functional outcomes in an elderly cohort with conservatively treated distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am 2004; 29 (06) 1121-1127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Young BT, Rayan GM. Outcome following nonoperative treatment of displaced distal radius fractures in low-demand patients older than 60 years. J Hand Surg Am 2000; 25 (01) 19-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kong L, Kou N, Wang Y, Lu J, Tian D, Zhang B. The Necessity of Restoration of Radiologic Parameters by Closed Reduction in Elderly Patients with Distal Radius Fractures. Med Sci Monit 2019; 25: 6598-6604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Solgaard S. Function after distal radius fracture. Acta Orthop Scand 1988; 59 (01) 39-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jenkins NH, Mintowt-Czyz WJ. Mal-union and dysfunction in Colles' fracture. J Hand Surg Br 1988; 13 (03) 291-293
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Altissimi M, Antenucci R, Fiacca C, Mancini GB. Long-term results of conservative treatment of fractures of the distal radius. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; (206) 202-210
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Salmon JM, Pattern S. Prevention of malunion of distal radius fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81 (01) 5
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Fujii K, Henmi T, Kanematsu Y, Mishiro T, Sakai T, Terai T. Fractures of the distal end of radius in elderly patients: a comparative study of anatomical and functional results. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2002; 10 (01) 9-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Smilovic J, Bilic R. Conservative treatment of extra-articular Colles' type fractures of the distal radius: prospective study. Croat Med J 2003; 44 (06) 740-745
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cooney III WP, Dobyns JH, Linscheid RL. Complications of Colles' fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980; 62 (04) 613-619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar