![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Background and purpose Bridging external fixation is used more frequently than non‐bridging fixation in the management of unstable distal radius fractures, despite evidence from randomized controlled trials of better outcome with the latter technique. This study was designed to investigate the generalizability of the technique of non‐bridging external fixation, and to define the indications for the use of each technique and their complications.
Methods 641 patients with unstable displaced fractures of the distal radius were treated with bridging or non‐bridging external fixation. Non‐bridging external fixation was used where there was space for pins in the distal fragment. 52 patients were lost to follow‐up, leaving 588 patients available for study. Complete data from radiographic measurements after fracture healing were available for 546 patients. 59 % of fractures were treated with the non‐bridging technique.
Results Fractures treated with bridging external fixation had a 6 times increased risk of dorsal malunion (p < 0.001) and a 2.5 times increased risk of radial shortening (p < 0.001) after adjusting for confounding factors (95% CI for odds ratio: 3–13 and 1.5–4, respectively) compared to non‐bridging techniques. Minor pin tract infections were more common in the non‐bridging group.
Interpretation Non‐bridging external fixation of the distal radius is a generalizable technique, and reduces the risk of dorsal malunion compared with bridging external fixation. Major complication rates are low and the technique is applicable to most unstable fractures of the distal radius. We recommend that non‐bridging external fixation be used where there is space for the pins in the distal fragment.