Comparison of Volar Locking Plate Fixation Alone and Volar Locking Plate Fixation Plus Calcium Phosphate Bone Cement Augmentation for Distal Radius Fractures Patients Aged More Than 65
Status
Conditions
Treatments
Details and patient eligibility
About
The incidence of distal radius fracture (DRF) increases with age, and thus, because of improving life expectancies, these fractures are set to become more common. Fractures of the distal radial metaphysis are known to be strongly related to osteoporosis, and as a result, the management of distal radius fractures in elderly patients is beset with difficulties.
Recently, more aggressive fracture fixation in the elderly has become a topic of interest, in the hope of increasing the rate of recovery to preserve the ability to live independently. Many elderly patients remain active well into their eighth and ninth decades, for example, some pursue activities, such as, golf and tennis, on a daily basis. The introduction of volar locking plating system has increased this interest. This system, which uses a fixed angle principle, has been proposed to be effective at maintaining good anatomic reduction, even in the elderly. However, there is a still concern about remaining metaphyseal defect after reduction of the osteoporotic DRF.
Injectable calcium phosphate bone cement (CPC) has been used to augment the remaining metaphyseal defect after fracture reduction including DRF, specially in osteoporotic old patients. The purpose of this randomized, prospective study was to investigate that additional CPC augmentation has any benefit over volar locking plate fixation in unstable DRF patient who is older than 65. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of wrist functional outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and complications between treatment of volar locking plate alone and calcium phosphate bone cement as well as volar locking plate in unstable DRF patient who is older than 65.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
- All patients older than 65 years old with an acute DRF were considered for inclusion for this study. Inclusion criterion of this study was an unacceptable closed reduction after one attempt of closed reduction. The criteria of unacceptable closed reduction included dorsal angulation of > 100, volar angulation of > 200, an articular gap or step off of >2 mm, radial inclination of <100, or radial shortening of > 5mm.
Exclusion criteria
- A preexisting severe illness
- An ipsilateral upper extremity injury
- A previous wrist injury
- Surgical delay of more than 2 weeks
- A concomitant ulnar neck fracture.
Trial design
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
41 participants in 1 patient group
Trial contacts and locations
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal