Understanding Variations in the Management of Displaced Distal Radius Fractures With Satisfactory Reduction.

IF 1.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
HAND Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-08 DOI:10.1177/15589447241233709
Jomar N A Aryee, Giulia C Frias, Daniel K Haddad, Kevin D Guerrero, Vivian Chen, Fan Ling, David Kirschenbaum, James T Monica, Brian M Katt
{"title":"Understanding Variations in the Management of Displaced Distal Radius Fractures With Satisfactory Reduction.","authors":"Jomar N A Aryee, Giulia C Frias, Daniel K Haddad, Kevin D Guerrero, Vivian Chen, Fan Ling, David Kirschenbaum, James T Monica, Brian M Katt","doi":"10.1177/15589447241233709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has set forth Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) to help guide management of closed, displaced distal radius fractures (DRFs). There still exists variation in practice regarding operative vs nonoperative decision-making. This study aims to identify which factors influence the decision to treat DRFs not indicated for surgery by the CPGs after initial closed reduction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifteen sets of DRFs and clinical vignettes were distributed via email to over 75 orthopedic residency programs, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, and New York Society for Surgery of the Hand membership. A Qualtrics survey collected respondent demographics, choice of treatment, and rationale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses were received from 106 surgeons and resident trainees. The odds of selecting operative management for fractures with 5 or more radiographic instability signs versus 3 or 4 was 3.11 (<i>P</i> < .05). Age over 65, higher patient activity level, and dominant-hand injury were associated with greater odds of operative management (3.4, 30.28, and 2.54, respectively). In addition, surgeons with more years in practice and high-volume surgeons had greater odds of selecting operative management (2.43 and 2.11, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Assessment of instability at the time of injury, patient age and activity level, as well as surgeon volume and time in practice independently affect the decision to manage well-reduced DRF with surgical or nonsurgical treatment. The source of heterogeneity in the treatment of these fractures is borne at least in part from a lack of formal direction on the importance of prereduction instability from the CPGs.</p>","PeriodicalId":12902,"journal":{"name":"HAND","volume":" ","pages":"762-769"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571539/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HAND","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15589447241233709","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has set forth Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) to help guide management of closed, displaced distal radius fractures (DRFs). There still exists variation in practice regarding operative vs nonoperative decision-making. This study aims to identify which factors influence the decision to treat DRFs not indicated for surgery by the CPGs after initial closed reduction.

Methods: Fifteen sets of DRFs and clinical vignettes were distributed via email to over 75 orthopedic residency programs, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, and New York Society for Surgery of the Hand membership. A Qualtrics survey collected respondent demographics, choice of treatment, and rationale.

Results: Responses were received from 106 surgeons and resident trainees. The odds of selecting operative management for fractures with 5 or more radiographic instability signs versus 3 or 4 was 3.11 (P < .05). Age over 65, higher patient activity level, and dominant-hand injury were associated with greater odds of operative management (3.4, 30.28, and 2.54, respectively). In addition, surgeons with more years in practice and high-volume surgeons had greater odds of selecting operative management (2.43 and 2.11, respectively).

Conclusions: Assessment of instability at the time of injury, patient age and activity level, as well as surgeon volume and time in practice independently affect the decision to manage well-reduced DRF with surgical or nonsurgical treatment. The source of heterogeneity in the treatment of these fractures is borne at least in part from a lack of formal direction on the importance of prereduction instability from the CPGs.

了解桡骨远端移位骨折成功复位后的不同处理方法。
背景:美国骨科外科医生学会制定了《临床实践指南》(CPGs),以指导闭合性移位桡骨远端骨折(DRFs)的治疗。关于手术与非手术决策的实践仍存在差异。本研究旨在确定哪些因素会影响在初次闭合复位后治疗 CPGs 未指定手术的 DRF 的决策:通过电子邮件向超过 75 个骨科住院医师培训项目、创伤骨科协会和纽约手外科学会的会员分发了 15 套 DRF 和临床案例。Qualtrics调查收集了受访者的人口统计数据、治疗选择和理由:结果:共收到 106 位外科医生和住院受训人员的回复。对于有 5 个或更多放射学不稳定征兆的骨折,选择手术治疗的几率为 3.11(P < .05),而选择 3 个或 4 个放射学不稳定征兆的几率为 3.11(P < .05)。年龄超过 65 岁、患者活动量较大和优势手受伤与手术治疗的几率较大相关(分别为 3.4、30.28 和 2.54)。此外,从业年限长的外科医生和工作量大的外科医生选择手术治疗的几率更高(分别为 2.43 和 2.11):结论:受伤时对不稳定性的评估、患者的年龄和活动水平以及外科医生的工作量和从业时间都会独立地影响通过手术或非手术治疗来管理减少的DRF的决定。这些骨折的治疗方法之所以存在差异,至少部分原因是 CPGs 对还原前不稳定性的重要性缺乏正式的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
HAND
HAND Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
209
期刊介绍: HAND is the official journal of the American Association for Hand Surgery and is a peer-reviewed journal featuring articles written by clinicians worldwide presenting current research and clinical work in the field of hand surgery. It features articles related to all aspects of hand and upper extremity surgery and the post operative care and rehabilitation of the hand.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信