[Arthroscopy-assisted management of wrist fractures]

The Outcome of Distal Radius Fractures with Concomitant Injuries Is Similar to those of Isolated Distal Radius Fractures Provided that an Arthroscopically Supported Treatment Is Performed

BACKGROUND

Concomitant injuries of distal radius fractures (DRF) can have a fatal impact on the patients' outcome. However, wrist arthroscopy is a costly and complex procedure. It remains elusive whether patients benefit from an additional arthroscopy.

METHODS

Patients with a DRF who were treated arthroscopically were enrolled. Fifty-six wrists were evaluated regarding their function by self-assessment with the Munich Wrist Questionnaire (MWQ). Thirty-nine patients were examined for postoperative strength and motion. Concomitant injuries were detected.

RESULTS

A total of 75% of the DRF were type C injuries (AO classification). Twenty-four cases (43%) were triangular fibrocartilaginous complex (TFCC) lesion, eight cases (14%) of scapholunate ligament (SL) injuries and seven cases (12%) were a combination of TFCC and SL ligament lesion. No difference in function could be detected between DRF with surgically addressed concomitant lesions and isolated DRF. Dorsalextension, palmarflexion and grip strength were significantly reduced in patients with DRF and concomitant injuries compared to the healthy wrist. However, patients with DRF and arthroscopically treated concomitant injuries had similar results to those suffering only from an isolated DRF.

CONCLUSION

The increased occurrence of concomitant injuries is to be expected in intraarticular DRF. Patients with concomitant injuries benefit from an arthroscopically assisted fracture treatment and show similar results compared to isolated DRF.

[Fractures of the distal radius]

The most prevalent fractures managed by trauma surgeons are those involving the distal radius. The injury occurs in two peaks of prevalence: the first peak around the age of 10 years and the second peak around the age of 60 years. Distal radius fracture management requires sensitive diagnostics and classification. The objectives of treatment are the reconstruction of a pain-free unlimited durable functioning of the wrist and avoidance of typical fracture complications. Non-operative conservative management is generally employed for stable non-displaced fractures of the distal radius with the expectation of a good functional outcome. Unstable comminuted fractures with intra-articular and extra-articular fragment zones are initially set in a closed operation and finally by osteosynthesis. An armament of surgical implants is available for instable fractures requiring fixation. Palmar locked plate osteosynthesis has been established in recent years as the gold standard for operative management of distal radius fractures. Complex Working Group on Osteosynthesis (AO) classification type 3 fractures require extensive preoperative diagnostics to identify and treat typical associated injuries around the wrist.

[Conservative treatment of distal radius fracture. Consequences of an uncritical follow-up]

A 74-year-old woman sustained a fracture of the distal radius with an additional fracture of the styloid process of the ulna due to a fall. After reduction under local anesthesia immobilization treatment in a forearm cast was initiated. Despite increasing secondary dislocation during radiological x-ray follow-up control, the bone was described as correctly aligned by the treating physician and non-operative treatment was continued. After a total treatment period of 9 months including 7 months of physiotherapy the patient still presented a limited range of motion and local soft tissue swelling of the right wrist. The patient filed a complaint for wrong treatment of the distal radius fracture resulting in severe pain and considerable deformity of the right wrist leading to a significant handicap during activities of daily living. The expert opinion of the arbitration board ascertained a case of medical malpractice in terms of the indications. Due to the initial presence of criteria of radiological instability, an operative treatment had already been indicated at the first presentation. In addition, secondary dislocation during radiological follow-up examination should have led to conversion of treatment in favor of surgery. The arbitration board furthermore concluded that iatrogenic malpractice led to a severe deformity of the right wrist which would result in a loss of grip strength and future arthritic deformation of the wrist. Legal aspects of the case are discussed.