Abstract
Purpose
-
Distal radius fractures (DRFs) represent up to 18% of all fractures in the elderly population, yet studies on the rate of complications following surgery are lacking in the literature. This systematic review aimed to quantify the rate of complications and reinterventions in patients treated with volar plate for distal radius fractures, and analyze if there was any predisposing factor.
Methods
-
A comprehensive literature search was performed on three databases up to January 2023, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies describing volar plate complications and hardware removal were included. A systematic review was performed on complications and rate of reintervention. Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence was performed with the ‘Down and Black’s Checklist for measuring quality’.
Results
-
About112 studies including 17 288 patients were included. The number of complications was 2434 in 2335 patients; the most frequent was carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), representing 14.3% of all complications. About 104 studies reported the number of reinterventions, being 1880 with a reintervention rate of 8.5%. About 84 studies reported the reason of reintervention; the most common were patient’s will (3.0%), pain (1.1%), CTS (1.2%), and device failure (1.1%).
Conclusion
-
The complication rate after DRFs is 13.5%, with the main complication being CTS (14.3%), followed by pain and tendinopathy. The reintervention rate is 8.5%, mainly due to the patient’s willingness, and all these patients had plate removal. Correct positioning of the plate and correct information to the patient before surgery can reduce the number of hardware removal, thereby reducing costs and the risk of complications associated with VLP for distal radius fractures.
Introduction
Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are one of the most common types of fractures, representing around 25% of fractures in the pediatric population and up to 18% of all fractures in the elderly population, with data from last year documenting an increasing prevalence trend of this injury (1). Despite the frequency of these fractures, there is still no consensus on the right treatment, ranging from closed reduction technique and cast immobilization to surgical operation (2, 3). Moreover, there are multiple types of fixation for the surgical treatment of DRFs: percutaneous K-wires fixation, volar or dorsal plates (LCP or conventional), external fixators, or a combination of these techniques.
Even though the optimal treatment remains without consensus (4), during the past 20 years, operative treatment has increased due to the development of new surgical techniques and materials. Volar locking plate fixation has become the first choice for the treatment of unstable DRFs (5). However, despite its encouraging results, a high percentage of complication rates have been reported (6), including nerve dysfunction, tendon injury, and hardware-related issues (7). Moreover, these complications require hardware removal, and even in the absence of complications, hardware removal is sometimes performed as a routine practice or at the patient’s request, thus necessitating a secondary surgery (8, 9, 10).
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the incidence of complications and secondary surgeries for plate removal in DRFs, to quantify the risks of volar locking plate surgery, and to assess whether particular populations are more prone to surgery-related complications, helping surgeons and patients in the choice of the treatment approach for DRFs.
Materials and methods
Literature search
A review protocol was developed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement (www.prisma-statement.org) (11). The study was registered on PROSPERO no. CRD42021276083. A comprehensive search of the literature was independently performed by two reviewers in the bibliographic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Wiley Cochrane Library from inception up to January 2023 without any filters. The following research terms were used: (‘bone plates’ OR ‘palmar plate’ OR ((volar OR palmar) AND (plate OR plates OR fixation)) AND (‘radius fractures’ OR ((radial OR radius) AND (fracture OR fractures))). Clinical studies describing medium- (12 months) and long-term (>12 months) complications of DRFs synthesis using the volar locking plate were included. Only articles with a follow-up of at least 12 months were considered. Case reports or case series describing ≤5 cases and articles in languages other than English were excluded. Preclinical and ex vivo studies, dorsal locking plate, pathologic fractures, fixation with augmentation, lacking description of the complications, and review articles were also criteria for exclusion.
Data extraction
Two independent reviewers screened manually all titles and abstracts without any automated tool. After this initial screening, articles that met the inclusion criteria were screened for full-text eligibility and were excluded if they met one of the exclusion criteria. In case of disagreement between the two reviewers, a third reviewer was consulted. An electronic table for data extraction was created using Excel (Microsoft) prior to the study. The following data were extracted: title, first author, year of publication, journal, study type, population characteristics, follow-up, fracture type, complications, reinterventions, and plate removal reasons. In case of doubt regarding the data, at least two attempts to contact the authors were made. Plate removal carried out at the patient’s request without explanation was not included in the complication count. The analysis was performed using Excel (Microsoft). All continuous data were expressed in terms of the mean and s.d., and a meta-analysis was not feasible due to the heterogeneity of the included studies.
Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence
The Downs and Black’s ‘Checklist for Measuring Quality’ was used to evaluate the risk of bias (12). It provides a numeric score out of 32 points. It contains 27 ‘yes’ or ’no’ questions across five sections. The five sections include questions about the overall quality of the study (10 items), the ability to generalize study findings (3 items), the study bias (7 items), confounding and selection bias (6 items), and the power of the study (1 item). Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence was completed independently for all outcomes by two authors, and a third author resolved any possible discrepancies. The quality of evidence for all outcomes was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), which classifies the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low (13).
Results
Details of the included studies
A total of 5814 articles were retrieved. After the removal of duplicates, and screening of the titles, abstracts, and full texts, 112 articles were included in the systematic review (Fig. 1) (6, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124). These include 59 case series, 29 comparative studies and 24 RCTs. In total, 17 288 patients (63.8% females) with 17 288 fractures were included; the mean age was 56.8 years old, and the mean follow-up was 18.6 months. Ninety-eight studies reported the C type of fracture according to the AO classification, constituting 59.3% of the fractures (for further details see Table 1).
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRIMSA) flowchart of the study selection process.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 9, 6; 10.1530/EOR-23-0188
Details of the included studies.
Study | Year | Country | Patients (M/F) | C type ratio | Mean FU (months) | RoB score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abdel-Wahed et al. (15) | 2022 | Egypt | 96 (72/24) | N/A | 14 | 21 |
Ali Fazal et al. (16) | 2020 | UK | 105 (31/74) | N/A | 18.3 | 18 |
Al-Shahwanii et al. (17) | 2021 | USA | 13 (6/7) | N/A | 12 | 19 |
Andersen et al. (18) | 2022 | Denmark | 509 | N/A | 12 | 17 |
Anakwe et al. (19) | 2010 | UK | 21 (8/13) | 100 | 15 | 13 |
Arora et al. (20) | 2007 | Austria | 114 (21/93) | 52 | 15 | 21 |
Arora et al. (21) | 2022 | Austria | 28 (22/6) | 71.4 | 12.2 | 19 |
Bajwa et al. (22) | 2015 | UK | 25 (11/14) | 44 | 24 | 23 |
Brennan et al. (23) | 2015 | Ireland | 151 (61/90) | 19 | 32.2 | 18 |
Child et al. (24) | 2022 | Switzerland | 41 (12/29) | 100 | 26 | 22 |
Chirpaz-Cerbat et al. (25) | 2011 | France | 25 (11/14) | N/A | 14 | 16 |
Chung et al. (26) | 2006 | USA | 87 (37/50) | 51 | 12 | 15 |
Chung et al. (27) | 2020 | USA | 65 (10/55) | 37 | 12 | 28 |
Costa et al. (28) | 2014 | UK | 231 (37/194) | 33 | 12 | 27 |
Dario et al. (29) | 2014 | Italy | 51 (17/24) | 82 | 40.5 | 16 |
DeGeorge et al. (10) | 2020 | USA | 636 (308/328) | 67.2 | 12 | 18 |
Egol et al. (30) | 2008 | USA | 39 (14/25) | 39 | 12 | 25 |
Eikrem et al. (31) | 2021 | Norway | 60 (7/53) | 0 | 12 | 25 |
Elerian et al. (32) | 2021 | UK | 61 (20/41) | 54.1 | 12 | 16 |
Esenwein et al. (33) | 2013 | Switzerland | 665 (405/260) | 70 | 13 | 13 |
Figl et al. (34) | 2009 | Austria | 80 (30/50) | 43 | 12 | 14 |
Florek et al. (35) | 2021 | Poland | 28 (22/6) | N/A | 12 | 19 |
Fowler et al. (36) | 2013 | USA | 37 (11/26) | 81 | 14 | 17 |
Frattini et al. (37) | 2009 | Italy | 48 (20/28) | 100 | 26 | 15 |
Gamo et al. (38) | 2022 | Japan | 57 (N/A) | 64.9 | 12 | 24 |
Garces-Zarzalejo et al. (39) | 2015 | Spain | 60 (19/41) | 36 | 12 | 15 |
Gerald et al. (38) | 2008 | Austria | 55 (18/37) | 100 | 29 | 19 |
Gallacher et al. (41) | 2010 | UK | 40 (13/27) | 45 | 18 | 16 |
Goorens et al. (42) | 2017 | Belgium | 10 (5/5) | 100 | 12 | 12 |
Gradl et al. (43) | 2014 | Germany | 55 (5/50) | 0 | 24 | 24 |
Grewal et al. (44) | 2005 | Canada | 29 (19/10) | 100 | 18 | 21 |
Gruber et al. (45) | 2010 | Austria | 54 (17/37) | 100 | 72 | 19 |
Gruber et al. (46) | 2006 | Austria | 93 (24/69) | 65.5 | 15.6 | 18 |
Hakimi et al. (47) | 2010 | Germany | 89 (30/89) | 100 | 12 | 14 |
Hall et al. (48) | 2019 | USA | 200 (40/160) | 74.5 | 12 | 17 |
Hollevoet et al. (49) | 2011 | Belgium | 16 (4/12) | N/A | 12 | 24 |
Huang et al. (50) | 2023 | Taiwan | 25 (15/10) | 28 | 15 | 22 |
Jakubietz et al. (51) | 2012 | Germany | 22 (3/19) | 100 | 12 | 25 |
Javed et al. (52) | 2015 | UK | 62 (22/40) | 19 | 12 | 15 |
Johnson et al. (53) | 2014 | UK | 204 (77/127) | N/A | 36 | 14 |
Jorge-Mora et al. (54) | 2012 | Spain | 40 (16/24) | 5 | 12 | 14 |
Jose et al. (55) | 2017 | India | 53 (42/11) | 34 | 21 | 12 |
Khan et al. (56) | 2016 | Pakistan | 43 (27/16) | 100 | 17.2 | 14 |
Karantana et al. (57) | 2013 | UK | 66 (N/A) | 59 | 12 | 22 |
Kato et al. (58) | 2014 | Japan | 100 (50/50) | 84 | 18 | 18 |
Kaya et al. (59) | 2022 | Istanbul | 14 (6/8) | N/A | 12 | 14 |
Kilic et al. (60) | 2009 | Turkey | 27 (15/12) | 81.5 | 18 | 13 |
Koehler et al. (61) | 2015 | USA | 99 (33/66) | 78 | 12 | 18 |
Knight et al. (6) | 2009 | UK | 40 (5/35) | 58 | 14 | 16 |
Kumar et al. (62) | 2016 | UK | 27 (4/23) | N/A | 12 | 21 |
Laohaprasitiporn et al. (63) | 2022 | Thailand | 44 (16/28) | 62.5 | 12 | 20 |
Lattmann et al. (64) | 2011 | Switzerland | 228 (55/173) | 53 | 12 | 17 |
Lawson et al. (65) | 2022 | Australia | 81 (11/70) | 32.1 | 24 | 20 |
Lee et al. (66) | 2012 | Taiwan | 31 (N/A) | 45 | 19 | 21 |
Lee et al. (67) | 2016 | Republic of Korea | 89 (19/70) | 60 | 12 | 17 |
Lee et al. (68) | 2020 | Republic of Korea | 1921 (587/1334) | 48.8 | 12 | 16 |
Lee et al. (69) | 2020 | Republic of Korea | 806 (264/542) | 77.4 | 12.1 | 17 |
Lee et al. (70) | 2022 | Republic of Korea | 28 (16/12) | 100 | 13.2 | 15 |
Li et al. (71) | 2019 | China | 1152 (432/720) | 10.2 | 12 | 18 |
Loveridge et al. (72) | 2013 | UK | 109 (N/A) | 60 | 25 | 14 |
Ludvigsen et al. (73) | 2020 | Norway | 69 (8/61) | 0 | 12 | 21 |
Lutsky et al. (74) | 2015 | USA | 374 (N/A) | 78.8 | 20 | 13 |
Macfarlane et al. (75) | 2015 | UK | 187 (N/A) | 60 | 31 | 16 |
Machado et al. (76) | 2012 | Brazil | 30 (16/14) | 12 | 17.5 | 15 |
Marlow et al. (77) | 2012 | UK | 107 (26/81) | 63 | 27 | 18 |
Moirangthem et al. (78) | 2015 | India | 24 (17/7) | 12.5 | 18 | 15 |
Nishiwaki et al. (79) | 2021 | USA | 109 (34/65) | 61.5 | 12 | 28 |
Orbay et al. (80) | 2000 | USA | 29 (12/17) | 45 | 16 | 13 |
Osada et al. (81) | 2008 | Japan | 49 (16/33) | 88 | 12 | 18 |
Patel et al. (82) | 2022 | India | 30 (18/12) | N/A | 13 | 20 |
Perregaard et al. (83) | 2023 | Denmark | 822 (158/664) | N/A | 30 | 22 |
Phadnis et al. (84) | 2012 | UK | 183 (51/132) | 45 | 30 | 19 |
Plate et al. (85) | 2015 | USA | 30 (11/19) | 0 | 24 | 24 |
Quadlbauer et al. (86) | 2018 | Austria | 392 (259/133) | 67 | 12 | 17 |
Quadlbauer et al. (87) | 2020 | Austria | 230 (76/154) | 61 | 20 | 18 |
Rein et al. (88) | 2007 | Germany | 15 (7/8) | 100 | 22 | 19 |
Richard et al. (89) | 2011 | USA | 56 (28/28) | 100 | 10 | 20 |
Roh et al. (90) | 2015 | Republic of Korea | 36 (16/20) | 100 | 12 | 25 |
Rozental et al. (91) | 2009 | USA | 21 (15/6) | 57 | 12 | 25 |
Rozental et al. (92) | 2006 | USA | 41 (15/26) | 46 | 17 | 16 |
Safi et al. (93) | 2013 | Czech Republic | 31 (6/25) | 0 | 12 | 19 |
Sammer et al. (94) | 2008 | USA | 85 (30/55) | 46 | 12 | 16 |
Satake et al. (95) | 2016 | Japan | 694 (165/529) | 44.9 | 12 | 16 |
Saving et al. (96) | 2018 | Sweden | 62 (17/55) | 61 | 37 | 26 |
Selles et al. (97) | 2018 | Netherlands | 323 (68/255) | 55 | 12 | 17 |
Selles et al. (98) | 2021 | Netherlands | 44 (8/36) | 100 | 12 | 25 |
Soong et al. (99) | 2010 | USA | 594 (244/350) | 53 | 12 | 20 |
Souer et al. (100) | 2011 | Switzerland | 111 (18/93) | 33 | 24 | 22 |
Spiteri et al. (101) | 2017 | UK | 20 (N/A) | N/A | 12 | 14 |
Subramanyam et al. (102) | 2022 | India | 42 (30/12) | 100 | 12 | 21 |
Sudow et al. (103) | 2022 | Sweden | 33 (1/32) | 33 | 36 | 19 |
Sugun et al. (104) | 2012 | Turkey | 46 (24/22) | 100 | 19 | 17 |
Tan et al. (105) | 2016 | Singapore | 165 (121/44) | 57 | 12 | 17 |
Tarallo et al. (106) | 2011 | Italy | 40 (18/22) | 100 | 17 | 16 |
Tarallo et al. (107) | 2014 | Italy | 40 (16/24) | 80 | 12 | 14 |
Thorninger et al. (108) | 2017 | Denmark | 576 (N/A) | 29 | 38 | 17 |
Thorninger et al. (109) | 2022 | Denmark | 43 (6/37) | N/A | 12 | 21 |
Tosti et al. (110) | 2013 | USA | 57 (15/32) | 80 | 12 | 21 |
Tronci et al. (111) | 2013 | Italy | 38 (8/30) | 51 | 24 | 19 |
Wei et al. (112) | 2009 | USA | 12 (3/9) | 75 | 12 | 27 |
Weil et al. (113) | 2014 | Israel | 75 (35/40) | 83 | 12 | 21 |
Wichlas et al. (114) | 2014 | Germany | 225 (89/134) | 56 | 33 | 18 |
Wilcke et al. (115) | 2011 | Sweden | 33 (N/A) | 55 | 12 | 36 |
Williksen et al. (116) | 2015 | Norway | 46 (N/A) | 74 | 66 | 27 |
Williksen et al. (117) | 2013 | Norway | 50 (N/A) | 71 | 12 | 29 |
Wilson et al. (118) | 2018 | UK | 616 (N/A) | 26 | 17.5 | 17 |
Wright et al. (119) | 2004 | USA | 21 (11/10) | 90 | 17 | 20 |
Yu et al. (120) | 2011 | USA | 47 (N/A) | 68 | 49 | 19 |
Yasuda et al. (121) | 2009 | Japan | 25 (6/19) | 48 | 12 | 17 |
Yin et al. (122) | 2022 | China | 34 (10/24) | 0 | 36 | 20 |
Zenke et al. (123) | 2011 | Japan | 66 (19/47) | 36 | 22.7 | 19 |
Zyluk et al. (124) | 2018 | Poland | 30 (12/18) | 83 | 12 | 19 |
M/F, male/female; C type, C type according to AO classification; FU, follow-up; RoB, risk of bias; N/A, not assessed.
Complications and reinterventions
All the retrieved studies reported the number of complications, being 2434 out of 2335 patients. The complication rate was 13.5% (95% CI: 12.0–15.0%). The most frequent complication was carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) with a rate of 2.0%, representing 14.5% of all complications (310 patients), followed by tendinopathy with a rate of 1.4%, representing 10.1% of all complications (234 patients), and pain with a rate of 1.3% (220 patients). The fourth most common complication was complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) with a rate of 1.1%, accounting for 8.0% of all complications (186 patients) (Table 2 for further details).
Type of complications, rate of complications, and % of all complications.
Type of complication | Number of complications | Rate of complications | % of all complications |
---|---|---|---|
Carpal tunnel syndrome | 329 | 2.00% | 14.26% |
Tendinopathy | 234 | 1.42% | 10.14% |
Pain | 220 | 1.34% | 9.54% |
CRPS | 186 | 1.13% | 8.06% |
Other | 204 | 1.24% | 8.84% |
Infection | |||
Superficial | 162 | 0.98% | 7.02% |
Deep | 38 | 0.23% | 1.65% |
Nerve injury | 168 | 1.02% | 7.28% |
Screw problem | 144 | 0.87% | 6.24% |
Neuropathy | 133 | 0.81% | 5.77% |
Tendon rupture | |||
Extensor | 79 | 0.48% | 3.42% |
Flexor | 40 | 0.24% | 1.73% |
Lost fixation | 93 | 0.56% | 4.03% |
Stiffness | 83 | 0.50% | 3.60% |
Plate problem | 83 | 0.50% | 3.60% |
Malunion | 40 | 0.24% | 1.73% |
Non-union | 27 | 0.16% | 1.17% |
Osteoarthritis | 17 | 0.10% | 0.74% |
DRUJ | 15 | 0.09% | 0.65% |
DeQuervain | 12 | 0.07% | 0.52% |
CTS, carpal tunnel syndrome; CRPS, complex regional pain syndrome; DRUJ, distal radial ulnar joint.
A total of 104 studies (14 644 patients) reported the number of reinterventions performed after VLP for DRFs. There were a total of 1880 reinterventions out of 1861 patients, for a reintervention rate of 8.5% (95% CI: 6.9–10.0%). Eighty-two studies (11 470 patients) reported the reason for the reintervention, with the most common being patients’ willingness with a rate of 3.0%, representing 31.8% of the total reasons for reintervention (351 patients). The second reason was pain, with a rate of 1.1%, representing 12.0% of the total reasons for reintervention (132 patients), followed by CTS and hardware issues (Table 3).
Reason for reintervention, number, rate of reinterventions, and percentage of all reinterventions.
Reason for reintervention | Number of reinterventions | Rate of reintervention | % of all reinterventions |
---|---|---|---|
Patients’ will | 351 | 3.02% | 31.76% |
Pain | 132 | 1.14% | 11.95% |
CTS | 134 | 1.15% | 12.13% |
Hardware issues | 129 | 1.11% | 11.67% |
Tendinopathy | 96 | 0.83% | 8.69% |
Other | 81 | 0.70% | 7.33% |
Tendon rupture | |||
Extensor | 23 | 0.20% | 2.08% |
Flexor | 17 | 0.15% | 1.54% |
Lost fixation | 40 | 0.34% | 3.62% |
Stiffness | 25 | 0.22% | 2.26% |
Nerve injury | 23 | 0.20% | 2.08% |
Infections | 23 | 0.20% | 2.08% |
DRUJ | 9 | 0.08% | 0.81% |
CRPS | 9 | 0.08% | 0.81% |
Non-union | 5 | 0.04% | 0.45% |
Osteoarthritis | 4 | 0.03% | 0.36% |
Malunion | 4 | 0.03% | 0.36% |
CTS, carpal tunnel syndrome; CRPS, complex regional pain syndrome; DRUJ, distal radial ulnar joint.
A total of 70 studies (8825 patients) reported the reasons for plate removal: 713 patients had plate removal (8.1%), out of 829 patients who had undergone a reintervention. The patient’s will was the main cause of reoperation, and in all these cases, the plate was removed. All patients operated for device issues, loss of fixation, DRUJ, CRPS, osteoarthritis, and malunion underwent plate removal (Table 4).
Reason for plate removal, number of reinterventions, number of plate removals, percentage of the reinterventions with plate removal.
Reason for plate removal | Number of reinterventions | Number of plate removals | Reinterventions with plate removal, % |
---|---|---|---|
Patients’ will | 159 | 159 | 100.00% |
Pain | 108 | 85 | 78.70% |
Device failure | 124 | 119 | 95.97% |
CTS | 116 | 105 | 90.52% |
Tendinopathy | 89 | 70 | 78.65% |
Other | 59 | 22 | 37.29% |
Lost fixation | 38 | 35 | 92.11% |
Stiffness | 24 | 15 | 62.50% |
Nerve injury | 23 | 20 | 86.96% |
Infections | 23 | 21 | 91.30% |
Tendon rupture | |||
Extensor | 21 | 19 | 90.48% |
Flexor | 13 | 12 | 92.31% |
DRUJ | 9 | 9 | 100.00% |
CRPS | 9 | 9 | 100.00% |
Non-union | 7 | 6 | 85.71% |
Osteoarthritis | 4 | 4 | 100.00% |
Malunion | 3 | 3 | 100.00% |
CTS, carpal tunnel syndrome; CRPS, complex regional pain syndrome; DRUJ, distal radial ulnar joint.
Risk of bias
The Downs and Black’s tool for assessing the risk of bias gives each study an excellent ranking for scores ≥ 26, good for scores from 20 to 25, fair for scores between 15 and 19, and poor for scores ≤ 14 points. According to these criteria, 16 of the included studies were classified as poor, 57 as fair, 31 as good, and 8 as excellent (Fig. 2). Mostly, the factors reducing the quality of the studies were the absence of confounders and blinding attempts, and the low statistical power of some studies. Based on the GRADE tool, the quality of evidence for both primary outcomes (complications, reinterventions) was judged to range from ‘moderate’ to ‘low’.
Downs and Black’s tool for assessing the risk of bias (15–124). For the explanation of each column question, see Appendix 1.
Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 9, 6; 10.1530/EOR-23-0188
Discussion
The main finding of this systematic review is that the complication rate after DRFs is 13.5%, with the most common complication being CTS, followed by pain and tendinopathy. The reintervention rate is also high, reaching 8.5% of patients treated with a volar locking plate.
DRF treatment-related complications vary largely in the literature reports on this common fracture type, ranging from 0% to 60%. Overall, the current systematic review quantifies an overall complication rate of 13.5% associated with volar locking plate fixation of DRFs. The complexity in studying the complication rate is explained by the fact that up to now there is no uniform definition of ‘complication’, and each author classifies different complications differently. For example, some authors do not mention CTS but report some form of nerve dysfunction without better specifying it (125, 126). Nonetheless, this study was able to summarize the literature evidence and identify the main complication patterns.
Regarding the complication types, this review demonstrates that CTS is the most common complication after volar locking plate fixation, with a rate of 2.0%, thus accounting for 14.3% of all complications. CTS is quite frequent in the general population, especially in middle-aged women and manual workers (127), but it is also known to occur as a product of distal radius fractures in 7–15% of cases, regardless of the treatment strategy (128). Generally, it is believed that CTS following distal radius fracture is not directly related to the hardware, but rather to the trauma suffered by the nerve due to the fracture and/or subsequent healing with thickening of the bony anatomy, residual malunion, and traction of the median nerve by the flexor pollicis longus (FPL) tendon. The rate retrieved in the present systematic review confirms the findings of a previous search in 2016 by Alter et al. (7), which reported a rate of 2.05%; contrarily to Zhang et al., who found 7.08% of complications (129). However, this higher rate could be explained by the low number of studies analyzed and the low number of patients (463 patients), with an inherently higher risk of bias.
This systematic review included a higher number of patients and complications than previous literature investigations, which allowed us to deepen the analysis of this important outcome of volar locking plate fixation. In this study, while belonging to the same family of complications, pain and CRPS were reported separately. Pain in patients undergoing volar locking plate fixation for DRFs was 1.3%, while the rate of CRPS, frequently undiagnosed or underestimated (130), was 1.1%, accounting together for 2.4% of patients and representing 18.4% of all complications. Bentham et al. in their review associated pain with CRPS and showed a rate of 1.6%, which was also confirmed by our systematic review. However, they do not report pain as a complication, resulting in an underestimated value of this family of complications. (131)
Finally, the third most frequent complication is flexor and extensor tendinopathy, which affects 1.5% of the operated patients. The incidence of tendon complications following volar locking plate fixation of DRFs has been reported over the years but with heterogeneous findings. Mellstrand et al. in their review reported a tendinopathy rate of 7.5% (125), whereas Azzi et al. reported a lower incidence of tendon complications, with a rate of 1.5% (132), and Wichlas et al. (114) surprisingly found no tendon complications at all. Such different complication rates may be explained by the fact that tendon injuries are underestimated (133), often have different origins, and each author interprets them differently: tendon injury may result from the initial traumatic event, intraoperative burn or screw penetration, postoperative screw prominence, profound scars, etc. Because of the anatomy of the distal radius, detection of screw prominence with traditional AP and lateral views is often unclear; thus, postoperative screw prominence is more common than it may appear (133, 134). A possible solution to this problem is the use of downsized unicortical screws since recent evidence suggests that they may produce equal biomechanical properties but provide a lower risk of dorsal prominence (135, 136) or using different intra-operative views (20, 137).
Another important result of this systematic review derives from the focus on the hardware removal rate. Almost one patient out of every ten required hardware removal, with most of the complications being caused by screw loosening or protruding screws. It is likely that hardware complications are underestimated in the literature, as they can often be accounted for as nerve and tendon complications, which, however, could be the consequence and not the cause of the complication itself. Arora et al. (138) found a 27% complication rate following volar locking plates, where tendon complications accounted for more than half of the complications; moreover, all patients with tenosynovitis underwent early hardware removal. Although all cases of tendinopathy and pain might not be associated with hardware prominence, the two phenomena are probably related (131, 138, 139) and may explain the lower-than-expected rate of hardware complications found in our systematic review where the different complication types were reported separately.
This systematic review shows that 8.1% of the patients required plate removal. The need for plate removal is due to different factors. A common reason for removal is the patient’s will, accounting for one-third of the total reinterventions. This probably depends on numerous factors that may influence the patient. First, a fundamental factor influencing the decision is the information that the surgeon reports to the patient at the time of the surgery proposal, which is often that the plate then can be removed at a later time if it bothers (139). Pain or hardware discomfort is not always experienced by the patient, who nevertheless wants to proceed with plate removal because of the belief that they have ‘foreign’ material in the body. In addition, sometimes the patient’s request for plate removal may be due to the fact that the clinical result is inferior to what was hoped for, with the patient willing to remove the plate in the hope of gaining functional improvement (126, 128).
Two-thirds of plate removals are caused instead by more objective reasons, with the most frequent causes being pain (12.5%), failure of synthetic means (11.2%), CTS (10.1%), and tendinopathy (8.6%). Recent studies suggest that plate irritation causing the latter complications leading to its removal can be diagnosed by tendon irritation tests, volar wrist crepitus, lateral radiography, and ultrasonography (128, 140, 141, 142). If there are positive results on plate irritation tests (e.g. incorrect volar tilts), early removal of the hardware is recommended to avoid further complications. In addition, most tendinopathies occurred within 6–25 months after surgery (143). This meta-analysis may have underestimated these complications because it has a mean follow-up time of 18.6 months. While the indications for VLP removal for patients without signs of plate irritation remain controversial since the rate of hardware removal did not have a positive correlation with improved clinical outcomes (140, 141, 144, 145), surgical removal of hardware in symptomatic patients reduced postoperative pain, discomfort, or stiffness (131, 139). Accordingly, this prompts attention toward preventing plate-related complications.
As stated in the study by Ward et al. (146) the complication rate is also associated with the surgeon’s experience. As such, in their analysis, the complication rate decreased with increasing surgeon’s experience, suggesting that many of these complications can be avoided. In particular, avoiding prolonged or aggressive traction on the median nerve may reduce postoperative nerve dysfunction. Moreover, plate coverage with pronator quadratus muscle or other vascularized gliding tissues may represent another advantage in reducing tendon irritation (147). Furthermore, prophylactic carpal tunnel release in patients at risk may represent a helpful tool to prevent secondary procedures (148).
Another interesting finding they pointed out is that a trend toward increased complications can be found in cases where more than 10 days elapsed between the injury and surgery (146). Unfortunately, this analysis could not be performed in the present systematic review and meta-analysis due to the lack of specific data, and future studies should take into account and report this aspect since it could influence the surgeon's strategy.
This systematic review has some limitations. First of all, the quality of the included studies reflects the quality of the literature regarding this topic, with 73 studies rated poor or fair, which could seem to impair the quality of the present analysis. However, the poor scoring was mainly due to a lack of comparative design and lack of blinding, both factors that, for the purpose of our analysis, are not important since the present paper is not a meta-analysis comparing two groups. The gray literature was not included in the search, which could cause some information to be lost. However, three databases were used, with PubMed and Web of Science being the largest medical databases used for searching medical information. In addition, in this study, complications were not divided into major or minor because these cannot be precisely defined since there is a lack of a universally shared classification. Thus, reporting each complication separately gives the reader the possibility to decide which ones are relevant to their evaluation. Furthermore, from the studies reviewed, it is not possible to stratify patients by age, sex, or comorbidities; it may be important to understand whether there are certain risk factors that lead to more complications, to provide clearer information to patients before distal radius osteosynthesis surgery.
Despite these limitations, this systematic review and meta-analysis provides the most updated and comprehensive evidence on this topic, which could be of value to surgeons and patients. This study presents the largest number of studies and patients analyzed regarding complications of surgically treated DRFs, thus providing the most reliable available data. Accordingly, this study investigates and details an important aspect related to the surgical approach, which helps give physicians and patients clear and comprehensive information about the possible risks and expectations of undergoing volar locking plate implantation for the treatment of DRFs.
Conclusion
The main result of this systematic review is that the complication rate after DRFs is 13.5%, with the main complication being CTS followed by pain and tendinopathy. The reintervention rate is 8.5%, mostly due to plate removal, with one-third of these cases being due to the patient’s willingness to remove the hardware. These aspects should be considered when choosing the treatment strategy to address DRFs.
ICMJE Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the study reported.
Funding Statement
This work did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.
Author contribution statement
Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by LP, LMO, and PF. The first draft of the manuscript was written by LP and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
References
- 1↑
Nellans KW, Kowalski E, & Chung KC. The epidemiology of distal radius fractures. Hand Clinics 2012 28 113–125. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hcl.2012.02.001)
- 2↑
Leixnering M, Rosenauer R, Pezzei C, Jurkowitsch J, Beer T, Keuchel T, Simon D, Hausner T, & Quadlbauer S. Indications, surgical approach, reduction, and stabilization techniques of distal radius fractures. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2020 140 611–621. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03365-y)
- 3↑
Chaudhry H, Kleinlugtenbelt YV, Mundi R, Ristevski B, Goslings JC, & Bhandari M. Are volar locking plates superior to percutaneous K-wires for distal radius fractures? A meta-analysis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2015 473 3017–3027. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4347-1)
- 4↑
Schneppendahl J, Windolf J, & Kaufmann RA. Distal radius fractures: current concepts. Journal of Hand Surgery 2012 37 1718–1725. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.06.001)
- 5↑
Im JH, & Lee JY. Pearls and pitfalls of the volar locking plating for distal radius fractures. Journal of Hand Surgery 2016 21 125–132. (https://doi.org/10.1142/S242483551640004X)
- 6↑
Knight D, Hajducka C, Will E, & McQueen M. Locked volar plating for unstable distal radial fractures: clinical and radiological outcomes. Injury 2010 41 184–189. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2009.08.024)
- 7↑
Alter TH, Sandrowski K, Gallant G, Kwok M, & Ilyas AM. Complications of volar plating of distal radius fractures: A systematic review. Journal of Wrist Surgery 2019 8 255–262. (https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1667304)
- 8↑
Gouk CJC, Bindra RR, Tarrant DJ, & Thomas MJE. Volar locking plate fixation versus external fixation of distal radius fractures: a meta-analysis. Journal of Hand Surgery 2018 43 954–960. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193417743936)
- 9↑
Kellam PJ, Harrast J, Weinberg M, Martin DF, Davidson NP, & Saltzman CL. Complications of hardware removal. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2021 103 2089–2095. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.02231)
- 10↑
DeGeorge BR Jr, Brogan DM, Becker HA, & Shin AY. Incidence of Complications following Volar Locking Plate Fixation of Distal Radius Fractures: an Analysis of 647 Cases. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2020 145 969–976. (https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006636)
- 11↑
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE , et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ) 2021 372 n71. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71)
- 12↑
Downs SH, & Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1998 52 377–384. (https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377)
- 13↑
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ & GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008 336 924–926. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD)
- 15↑
Abdel-Wahed M, Khater AA, & El-Desouky MA. Volar locking plate fixation for distal radius fractures: did variable-angle plates make difference? International Orthopaedics 2022 46 2165–2176. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05469-z)
- 16↑
Ali Fazal M, Denis Mitchell C, & Ashwood N. Volar locking plate: age related outcomes and complications. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma 2020 11 642–645. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2020.05.025)
- 17↑
Al-Shahwanii ZW, & Qaryaqos SH. Comparative study between volar locked plates versus closed reduction with percutaneous pinning in management of unstable extra-articular distal radius fractures. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association 2021 71(Supplement 8) S35–S39.
- 18↑
Andersen MF, Landgren M, Schmidt LB, & Hassani G. Complications associated with anterior plate fixation of distal radial fractures: a retrospective study of 599 patients. Journal of Hand Surgery 2022 47 825–830. (https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934221089225)
- 19↑
Anakwe RE, Khan LAK, Cook RE, & McEachan JE. Locked volar plating for complex distal radius fractures: patient reported outcomes and satisfaction. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2010 5 51. (https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-5-51)
- 20↑
Arora R, Lutz M, Hennerbichler A, Krappinger D, Espen D, & Gabl M. Complications following internal fixation of unstable distal radius fracture with a palmar locking-plate. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 2007 21 316–322. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e318059b993)
- 21↑
Arora S, Govil V, Neogi AK, Bishnoi S, Paul S, & Gupta RK. Functional and radiological outcomes in intra-articular fractures of distal radius with volar variable angle locking plates. Trauma Monthly 2022 27 380–385.
- 22↑
Bajwa AS, Rammappa M, Lee L, & Nanda R. Treatment of unstable distal radius fractures: non-invasive dynamic external fixator versus volar locking plate - functional and radiological outcome in a prospective case-controlled series. SICOT-J 2015 1 34. (https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2015033)
- 23↑
Brennan SA, Kiernan C, Beecher S, O’Reilly RT, Devitt BM, Kearns SR, & O’Sullivan ME. Volar plate versus k-wire fixation of distal radius fractures. Injury 2016 47 372–376. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.08.040)
- 24↑
Child C, Müller A, Allemann F, Pape HC, Welter J, Breiding P, & Hess F. A retrospective comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes using palmar or dorsal plating to treat complex intraarticular distal radius fractures (AO 2R3 C3). European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 2022 48 4357–4364. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-020-01389-y)
- 25↑
Chirpaz-Cerbat JM, Ruatti S, Houillon C, & Ionescu S. Dorsally displaced distal radius fractures treated by fixed-angle volar plating: grip and pronosupination strength recovery. A prospective study. Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Surgery and Research 2011 97 465–470. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2011.01.016)
- 26↑
Chung KC, Watt AJ, Kotsis SV, Margaliot Z, Haase SC, & Kim HM. Treatment of unstable distal radial fractures with the volar locking plating system. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2006 88 2687–2694. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.E.01298)
- 27↑
Chung KC, Kim HM, Malay S, Shauver MJ & Wrist and Radius Injury Surgical Trial Group. The wrist and radius injury surgical trial: 12-month outcomes from a multicenter international randomized clinical trial. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2020 145 1054e–1066e. (https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006829)
- 28↑
Costa ML, Achten J, Parsons NR, Rangan A, Griffin D, Tubeuf S, Lamb SE & DRAFFT Study Group. Percutaneous fixation with Kirschner wires versus volar locking plate fixation in adults with dorsally displaced fracture of distal radius: randomised controlled trial. BMJ) 2014 349 g4807. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4807)
- 29↑
Dario P, Matteo G, Carolina C, Marco G, Cristina D, Daniele F, & Andrea F. Is it really necessary to restore radial anatomic parameters after distal radius fractures? Injury 2014 45(Supplement 6) S21–S26. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.10.018)
- 30↑
Egol K, Walsh M, Tejwani N, McLaurin T, Wynn C, & Paksima N. Bridging external fixation and supplementary Kirschner-wire fixation versus volar locked plating for unstable fractures of the distal radius: a randomised, prospective trial. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2008 90 1214–1221. (https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.90B9.20521)
- 31↑
Eikrem M, Brannsten H, Bjørkøy D, Lian T, Madsen JE, & Figved W. Volar locking plate versus dorsal locking nail-plate fixation for dorsally displaced unstable extra-articular distal radial fractures: functional and radiographic results from a randomized controlled trial. JBJS Open Access 2021 6 e21.00068. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.21.00068)
- 32↑
Elerian S, Singh T, N, Norris R, Tan S, Power D, Jones J, Chen Z, Eltagy H, et al.Early results of a variable-angle volar locking plate for distal radius fractures: a bi-centre study. Cureus 2021 13 e18321. (https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.18321)
- 33↑
Esenwein P, Sonderegger J, Gruenert J, Ellenrieder B, Tawfik J, & Jakubietz M. Complications following palmar plate fixation of distal radius fractures: a review of 665 cases. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2013 133 1155–1162. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1766-x)
- 34↑
Figl M, Weninger P, Liska M, Hofbauer M, & Leixnering M. Volar fixed-angle plate osteosynthesis of unstable distal radius fractures: 12 months results. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2009 129 661–669. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-009-0830-z)
- 35↑
Florek J, Georgiew F, & Kotela I. Comparative assessment of functional outcomes of surgical treatment in patients with distal radial fractures. Ortopedia, Traumatologia, Rehabilitacja 2021 23 401–410. (https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.6355)
- 36↑
Fowler JR, & Ilyas AM. Prospective evaluation of distal radius fractures treated with variable-angle volar locking plates. Journal of Hand Surgery 2013 38 2198–2203. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.08.116)
- 37↑
Frattini M, Soncini G, Corradi M, Panno B, Tocco S, & Pogliacomi F. Complex fractures of the distal radius treated with angular stability plates. Chirurgia degli Organi di Movimento 2009 93 155–162. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-009-0035-1)
- 38↑
Gamo K, Baba N, Kakimoto T, & Kuratsu S. Efficacy of hand therapy after volar locking plate fixation of distal radius fracture in middle-aged to elderly women: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Hand Surgery 2022 47 62.e1–62.e7. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.08.009)
- 39↑
Garcés-Zarzalejo C, Sánchez-Crespo MR, Peñas-Díaz F, Ayala-Gutiérrez H, Sanz Giménez-Rico JR, Alfonso-Fernández A, Burgos-Palacios V, & del Canto-Álvarez F. Distal radius fractures: should we use supplemental bone grafts or substitutites in cases of severe osteoporotic or conminution? Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia 2015 59 97–103. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recot.2014.07.009)
- 40↑
Gruber G, Gruber K, Giessauf C, Clar H, Zacherl M, Fuerst F, & Bernhardt GA. Volar plate fixation of AO type C2 and C3 distal radius fractures, a single-center study of 55 patients. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 2008 22 467–472. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e318180db09)
- 41↑
Gallacher PD, Gilbert R, Memon S, & Bhoora IG. Volar plating of distal radius fractures using a locked anatomically contoured plate. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology 2010 20 11–15. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-009-0489-8)
- 42↑
Goorens CK, Geeurickx S, Wernaers P, Staelens B, Scheerlinck T, & Goubau J. Midterm follow-up of treating volar marginal rim fractures with variable angle Lcp volar rim distal radius plates. Journal of Hand Surgery 2017 22 184–187. (https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218810417500228)
- 43↑
Gradl G, Mielsch N, Wendt M, Falk S, Mittlmeier T, Gierer P, & Gradl G. Intramedullary nail versus volar plate fixation of extra-articular distal radius fractures. Two year results of a prospective randomized trial. Injury 2014 45(Supplement 1) S3–S8. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2013.10.045)
- 44↑
Grewal R, Perey B, Wilmink M, & Stothers K. A randomized prospective study on the treatment of intra-articular distal radius fractures: open reduction and internal fixation with dorsal plating versus mini open reduction, percutaneous fixation, and external fixation. Journal of Hand Surgery 2005 30 764–772. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2005.04.019)
- 45↑
Gruber G, Zacherl M, Giessauf C, Glehr M, Fuerst F, Liebmann W, Gruber K, & Bernhardt GA. Quality of life after volar plate fixation of articular fractures of the distal part of the radius. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2010 92 1170–1178. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.00737)
- 46↑
Gruber G, Bernhardt GA, Köhler G, & Gruber K. Surgical treatment of distal radius fractures with an angle fixed bar palmar plating system: a single center study of 102 patients over a 2-year period. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2006 126 680–685. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-006-0191-9)
- 47↑
Hakimi M, Jungbluth P, Windolf J, & Wild M. Functional results and complications following locking palmar plating on the distal radius: a retrospective study. Journal of Hand Surgery 2010 35 283–288. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193409339943)
- 48↑
Hall MJ, Ostergaard PJ, Dowlatshahi AS, Harper CM, Earp BE, & Rozental TD. The impact of obesity and smoking on outcomes after volar plate fixation of distal radius fractures. Journal of Hand Surgery 2019 44 1037–1049. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2019.08.017)
- 49↑
Hollevoet N, Vanhoutie T, Vanhove W, & Verdonk R. Percutaneous K-wire fixation versus palmar plating with locking screws for colles’ fractures. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica 2011 77 180–187.
- 50↑
Huang YM, Chen CY, Lin KC, Lai WY, Lin YY, Fu YJ, & Tarng YW. Using Trident distal radial locking plate to fix the fracture of distal radius volar rim. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association 2023 86 426–430. (https://doi.org/10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000881)
- 51↑
Jakubietz MG, Gruenert JG, & Jakubietz RG. Palmar and dorsal fixed-angle plates in AO C-type fractures of the distal radius: is there an advantage of palmar plates in the long term? Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2012 7 8. (https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-7-8)
- 52↑
Javed S, Shahid R, Thimmiah R, & El-deen M. Volar locking plate osteosynthesis for distal radial fractures. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery (Hong Kong) 2015 23 323–326. (https://doi.org/10.1177/230949901502300313)
- 53↑
Johnson NA, Cutler L, Dias JJ, Ullah AS, Wildin CJ, & Bhowal B. Complications after volar locking plate fixation of distal radius fractures. Injury 2014 45 528–533. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2013.10.003)
- 54↑
Jorge-Mora AA, Cecilia-López D, Rodríguez-Vega V, Suárez-Arias L, Andrés-Esteban E, Porras-Moreno MÁ, & Resines-Erasun C. Comparison between external fixators and fixed-angle volar-locking plates in the treatment of distal radius fractures. Journal of Hand and Microsurgery 2012 4 50–54. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12593-012-0072-0)
- 55↑
Jose A, Suranigi SM, Deniese PN, Babu AT, Rengasamy K, & Najimudeen S. Unstable distal radius fractures treated by volar locking anatomical plates. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2017 11 Rc04–rc8. (https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/24114.9261)
- 56↑
Khan MS, Noordin S, & Hashmi PM. Intra-articular distal radius fractures: postoperative roentgenographic and functional outcomes. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association 2016 66 275–279.
- 57↑
Karantana A, Downing ND, Forward DP, Hatton M, Taylor AM, Scammell BE, Moran CG, & Davis TR. Surgical treatment of distal radial fractures with a volar locking plate versus conventional percutaneous methods: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2013 95 1737–1744. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00232)
- 58↑
Kato S, Tatebe M, Yamamoto M, Iwatsuki K, Nishizuka T, & Hirata H. The results of volar locking plate fixation for the fragility fracture population with distal radius fracture in Japanese women. Nagoya Journal of Medical Science 2014 76 101–111.
- 59↑
Kaya O, Gulabi D, Buyukdogan H, Baris AC, Kilic B, & Caliskan M. Clinical results of distal radius intraarticular comminuted fractures in the elderly: A retrospective comparative analysis of different fixation methods. Cureus 2022 14 e28077. (https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.28077)
- 60↑
Kiliç A, Kabukçuoğlu Y, Ozkaya U, Gül M, Sökücü S, & Ozdoğan U. Volar locking plate fixation of unstable distal radius fractures. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 2009 43 303–308. (https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2009.303)
- 61↑
Koehler DM, Gao Y, Guan JJ, Lawler EA, Adams BD, & Shah AS. Postsurgical complications following distal radius volar plating in a diabetic population at short-term follow-up. Hand 2015 10 670–677. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-015-9777-4)
- 62↑
Kumar S, Khan AN, & Sonanis SV. Radiographic and functional evaluation of low profile dorsal versus volar plating for distal radius fractures. Journal of Orthopaedics 2016 13 376–382. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2016.06.017)
- 63↑
Laohaprasitiporn P, Boonchai K, Monteerarat Y, Limthongthang R, & Vathana T. Comparative clinical and radiographic outcomes between early and delayed wrist mobilization after volar fixed-angle plate fixation of distal radius fracture. Scientific Reports 2022 12 9648. (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13909-4)
- 64↑
Lattmann T, Meier C, Dietrich M, Forberger J, & Platz A. Results of volar locking plate osteosynthesis for distal radial fractures. Journal of Trauma 2011 70 1510–1518. (https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181f13c6a)
- 65↑
Combined Randomised and Observational Study of Surgery for Fractures in the Distal Radius in the Elderly (CROSSFIRE) Study Group, Lawson A, Naylor J, Buchbinder R, Ivers R, Balogh ZJ, Smith P, Xuan W, Howard K, Vafa A, et al.Plating vs closed reduction for fractures in the distal radius in older patients: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surgery 2022 157 563–571. (https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2022.0809)
- 66↑
Lee YS, Wei TY, Cheng YC, Hsu TL, & Huang CR. A comparative study of colles’ fractures in patients between fifty and seventy years of age: percutaneous K-wiring versus volar locking plating. International Orthopaedics 2012 36 789–794. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1424-2)
- 67↑
Lee SJ, Park JW, Kang BJ, & Lee JI. Clinical and radiologic factors affecting functional outcomes after volar locking plate fixation of dorsal angulated distal radius fractures. Journal of Orthopaedic Science 2016 21 619–624. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2016.05.007)
- 68↑
Lee JH, Lee JK, Park JS, Kim DH, Baek JH, Kim YJ, Yoon KT, Song SH, Gwak HG, Ha C, et al.Complications associated with volar locking plate fixation for distal radius fractures in 1955 cases: A multicentre retrospective study. International Orthopaedics 2020 44 2057–2067. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04673-z)
- 69↑
Lee JK, Lee Y, Kim C, Kim M, & Han SH. Volar locking plate removal after distal radius fracture: a 10-year retrospective study. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2021 141 1711–1719. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03637-7)
- 70↑
Lee JH, Ahn JT, & Baek JH. Dorsal plating versus volar plating with limited dorsal open reduction in the management of AO type C3 distal radius fractures with impacted articular fragments: A retrospective comparative study. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 2022 56 42–47. (https://doi.org/10.5152/j.aott.2022.21157)
- 71↑
Li Y, Zhou Y, Zhang X, Tian D, & Zhang B. Incidence of complications and secondary procedure following distal radius fractures treated by volar locking plate (VLP). Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2019 14 295. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1344-1)
- 72↑
Loveridge J, Ahearn N, Gee C, Pearson D, Sivaloganathan S, & Bhatia R. Treatment of distal radial fractures with the DVR-A plate–the early Bristol experience. Hand Surgery 2013 18 159–167. (https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218810413500184)
- 73↑
Ludvigsen T, Matre K, Gudmundsdottir RS, Krukhaug Y, Dybvik EH, & Fevang JM. Surgical treatment of distal radial fractures with external fixation versus volar locking plate: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2021 103 405–414. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.00275)
- 74↑
Lutsky KF, Beredjiklian PK, Hioe S, Bilello J, Kim N, & Matzon JL. Incidence of hardware removal following volar plate fixation of distal radius fracture. Journal of Hand Surgery 2015 40 2410–2415. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.09.017)
- 75↑
MacFarlane RJ, Miller D, Wilson L, Meyer C, Kerin C, Ford DJ, & Cheung G. Functional outcome and complications at 2.5 years following volar locking plate fixation of distal radius fractures. Journal of Hand and Microsurgery 2015 7 18–24. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12593-014-0155-1)
- 76↑
Machado DG, da Cruz Cerqueira SA, Rodarte RR, de Souza Araújo Netto CA, & de Mathias MB. Statistical analysis on functional and radiographic results after use of locked volar plate for fractures of the distal radiuS. Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia 2012 47 297–303. (https://doi.org/10.1016/S2255-4971(1530102-6)
- 77↑
Marlow WJ, Singhal R, Dheerendra S, Ralte P, Fischer J, & Waseem M. Distal radius volar locking plates: does a variable angle locking system confer a clinical advantage? Acta Orthopaedica Belgica 2012 78 309–316.
- 78↑
Moirangthem V, Bharat Kumar RJ, Vijayanand RR, & Narayna Reddy M. Volar plating of distal radius fracture: A retrospective analysis. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences 2015 4 9094–9102. (https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2015/1318)
- 79↑
Nishiwaki M, Terasaka Y, Kiyota Y, Inaba N, Koyanagi T, & Horiuchi Y. A prospective randomized comparison of variable-angle and fixed-angle volar locking plating for intra-articular distal radius fractures. Journal of Hand Surgery 2021 46 584–593. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.03.014)
- 80↑
Orbay JL. The treatment of unstable distal radius fractures with volar fixation. Hand Surgery 2000 5 103–112. (https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218810400000223)
- 81↑
Osada D, Kamei S, Masuzaki K, Takai M, Kameda M, & Tamai K. Prospective study of distal radius fractures treated with a volar locking plate system. Journal of Hand Surgery 2008 33 691–700. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2008.01.024)
- 82↑
Patel S, Deshmukh A, Yadav P, Phalak M, Gurnani S, Yadav S, & Anand A. Assessment of functional and radiological outcomes of comminuted intra-articular distal radius fracture treated with locking compression plate. Cureus 2022 14 e21398. (https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.21398)
- 83↑
Perregaard S, Jørgensen RW, & Landgren M. Complications after volar locking plate fixation of distal radius fractures: A retrospective study of 822 patients. Journal of Hand Surgery 2023. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2022.11.012)
- 84↑
Phadnis J, Trompeter A, Gallagher K, Bradshaw L, Elliott DS, & Newman KJ. Mid-term functional outcome after the internal fixation of distal radius fractures. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2012 7 4. (https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-7-4)
- 85↑
Plate JF, Gaffney DL, Emory CL, Mannava S, Smith BP, Koman LA, Wiesler ER, & Li Z. Randomized comparison of volar locking plates and intramedullary nails for unstable distal radius fractures. Journal of Hand Surgery 2015 40 1095–1101. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.02.014)
- 86↑
Quadlbauer S, Pezzei C, Jurkowitsch J, Rosenauer R, Pichler A, Schättin S, Hausner T, & Leixnering M. Early complications and radiological outcome after distal radius fractures stabilized by volar angular stable locking plate. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2018 138 1773–1782. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-3051-5)
- 87↑
Quadlbauer S, Pezzei C, Jurkowitsch J, Rosenauer R, Pichler A, Schättin S, Hausner T, & Leixnering M. Functional and radiological outcome of distal radius fractures stabilized by volar-locking plate with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2020 140 843–852. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03411-9)
- 88↑
Rein S, Schikore H, Schneiders W, Amlang M, & Zwipp H. Results of dorsal or volar plate fixation of AO type C3 distal radius fractures: a retrospective study. Journal of Hand Surgery 2007 32 954–961. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2007.05.008)
- 89↑
Richard MJ, Wartinbee DA, Riboh J, Miller M, Leversedge FJ, & Ruch DS. Analysis of the complications of palmar plating versus external fixation for fractures of the distal radius. Journal of Hand Surgery 2011 36 1614–1620. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.06.030)
- 90↑
Roh YH, Lee BK, Baek JR, Noh JH, Gong HS, & Baek GH. A randomized comparison of volar plate and external fixation for intra-articular distal radius fractures. Journal of Hand Surgery 2015 40 34–41. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.09.025)
- 91↑
Rozental TD, Blazar PE, Franko OI, Chacko AT, Earp BE, & Day CS. Functional outcomes for unstable distal radial fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation or closed reduction and percutaneous fixation. A prospective randomized trial. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2009 91 1837–1846. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01478)
- 92↑
Rozental TD, & Blazar PE. Functional outcome and complications after volar plating for dorsally displaced, unstable fractures of the distal radius. Journal of Hand Surgery 2006 31 359–365. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2005.10.010)
- 93↑
Safi A, Hart R, Těknědžjan B, & Kozák T. Treatment of extra-articular and simple articular distal radial fractures with intramedullary nail versus volar locking plate. Journal of Hand Surgery 2013 38 774–779. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193413478715)
- 94↑
Sammer DM, Fuller DS, Kim HM, & Chung KC. A comparative study of fragment-specific versus volar plate fixation of distal radius fractures. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2008 122 1441–1450. (https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181891677)
- 95↑
Satake H, Hanaka N, Honma R, Watanabe T, Inoue S, Kanauchi Y, Kato Y, Nakajima T, Sato D, Eto J, et al.Complications of distal radius fractures treated by volar locking plate fixation. Orthopedics 2016 39 e893–e896. (https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20160517-05)
- 96↑
Saving J, Enocson A, Ponzer S, & Mellstrand Navarro C. External fixation versus volar locking plate for unstable dorsally displaced distal radius fractures-A 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled study. Journal of Hand Surgery 2019 44 18–26. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.09.015)
- 97↑
Selles CA, Reerds STH, Roukema G, van der Vlies KH, Cleffken BI, & Schep NWL. Relationship between plate removal and Soong grading following surgery for fractured distal radius. Journal of Hand Surgery 2018 43 137–141. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193417726636)
- 98↑
Selles CA, Mulders MAM, Winkelhagen J, van Eerten PV, Goslings JC, Schep NWL & VIPAR Collaborators. Volar plate fixation versus cast immobilization in acceptably reduced intra-articular distal radial fractures: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2021 103 1963–1969. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.01344)
- 99↑
Soong M, van Leerdam R, Guitton TG, Got C, Katarincic J, & Ring D. Fracture of the distal radius: risk factors for complications after locked volar plate fixation. Journal of Hand Surgery 2011 36 3–9. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.09.033)
- 100↑
Souer JS, Ring D, Jupiter J, Matschke S, Audigé L, Marent-Huber M & LCP Distal Radius Study Group. Comparison of intra-articular simple compression and extra-articular distal radial fractures. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2011 93 2093–2099. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01069)
- 101↑
Spiteri M, Ng W, Matthews J, & Power D. Functional outcome of fixation of complex intra-articular distal radius fractures with a variable-angle distal radius volar rim plate. Journal of Hand and Microsurgery 2017 9 11–16. (https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1601325)
- 102↑
Subramanyam KN, Khanchandani P, Mundargi AV, Suneelkumar M, & Reddy R. Ilizarov ligamentotaxis versus volar locked plating in the management of AO type C2/C3 distal radius fractures-a prospective non-randomised comparative trial. Musculoskeletal Surgery 2022 106 279–290. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-021-00704-z)
- 103↑
Südow H, Severin S, Wilcke M, Saving J, Sköldenberg O, & Navarro CM. Non-operative treatment or volar locking plate fixation for dorsally displaced distal radius fractures in patients over 70 years - a three year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2022 23 447. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05394-7)
- 104↑
Sügün TS, Gürbüz Y, Ozaksar K, Toros T, Kayalar M, & Bal E. Results of volar locking plating for unstable distal radius fractures. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 2012 46 22–25. (https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2012.2623)
- 105↑
Tan A, & Chong A. Reasons for implant removal after distal radius fractures. Journal of Hand Surgery 2016 21 321–325. (https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424835516500284)
- 106↑
Tarallo L, Adani R, Mugnai R, & Catani F. The treatment of distal radius articular fractures of C1-C2 type with DVR plate: analysis of 40 cases. Musculoskeletal Surgery 2011 95 225–230. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-011-0140-9)
- 107↑
Tarallo L, Mugnai R, Adani R, Zambianchi F, & Catani F. A new volar plate made of carbon-fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketon for distal radius fracture: analysis of 40 cases. Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2014 15 277–283. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-014-0311-1)
- 108↑
Thorninger R, Madsen ML, Wæver D, Borris LC, & Rölfing JHD. Complications of volar locking plating of distal radius fractures in 576 patients with 3.2 years follow-up. Injury 2017 48 1104–1109. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.03.008)
- 109↑
Thorninger R, Wæver D, Tjørnild M, Lind M, & Rölfing JD. VOLCON: a randomized controlled trial investigating complications and functional outcome of volar plating vs casting of unstable distal radius fractures in patients older than 65 years. Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2022 23 54. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-022-00673-4)
- 110↑
Tosti R, & Ilyas AM. Prospective evaluation of pronator quadratus repair following volar plate fixation of distal radius fractures. Journal of Hand Surgery 2013 38 1678–1684. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.06.006)
- 111↑
Tronci V, Campochiaro G, Gazzotti G, Rebuzzi M, Tsatsis C, & Catani F. Distal radius articular fractures: a comparison between ORIF with angular stability plate and percutaneous Kirschner wires. Acta Bio-Medica: Atenei Parmensis 2013 84 38–43.
- 112↑
Wei DH, Raizman NM, Bottino CJ, Jobin CM, Strauch RJ, & Rosenwasser MP. Unstable distal radial fractures treated with external fixation, a radial column plate, or a volar plate. A prospective randomized trial. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2009 91 1568–1577. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00722)
- 113↑
Weil YA, Mosheiff R, Firman S, Liebergall M, & Khoury A. Outcome of delayed primary internal fixation of distal radius fractures: a comparative study. Injury 2014 45 960–964. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.02.011)
- 114↑
Wichlas F, Haas NP, Disch A, Machó D, & Tsitsilonis S. Complication rates and reduction potential of palmar versus dorsal locking plate osteosynthesis for the treatment of distal radius fractures. Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2014 15 259–264. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-014-0306-y)
- 115↑
Wilcke MK, Abbaszadegan H, & Adolphson PY. Wrist function recovers more rapidly after volar locked plating than after external fixation but the outcomes are similar after 1 year. Acta Orthopaedica 2011 82 76–81. (https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.552781)
- 116↑
Williksen JH, Husby T, Hellund JC, Kvernmo HD, Rosales C, & Frihagen F. External fixation and adjuvant pins versus volar locking plate fixation in unstable distal radius fractures: a randomized, controlled study with a 5-year follow-up. Journal of Hand Surgery 2015 40 1333–1340. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.03.008)
- 117↑
Williksen JH, Frihagen F, Hellund JC, Kvernmo HD, & Husby T. Volar locking plates versus external fixation and adjuvant pin fixation in unstable distal radius fractures: a randomized, controlled study. Journal of Hand Surgery 2013 38 1469–1476. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.04.039)
- 118↑
Wilson J, Viner JJ, Johal KS, & Woodruff MJ. Volar locking plate fixations for displaced distal radius fractures: an evaluation of complications and radiographic outcomes. Hand 2018 13 466–472. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944717717505)
- 119↑
Wright TW, Horodyski M, & Smith DW. Functional outcome of unstable distal radius fractures: ORIF with a volar fixed-angle tine plate versus external fixation. Journal of Hand Surgery 2005 30 289–299. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2004.11.014)
- 120↑
Yu YR, Makhni MC, Tabrizi S, Rozental TD, Mundanthanam G, & Day CS. Complications of low-profile dorsal versus volar locking plates in the distal radius: a comparative study. Journal of Hand Surgery 2011 36 1135–1141. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.04.004)
- 121↑
Yasuda M, & Ando Y. A new variable angled locking volar plate system for Colles’ fracture: outcome study and time-course improvement of objective clinical variables. Hand Surgery 2009 14 93–98. (https://doi.org/10.1142/S021881040900430X)
- 122↑
Yin CY, Huang HK, Fufa D, & Wang JP. Radius distraction during volar plating of distal radius fractures may improve distal radioulnar joint stability at minimum 3-year follow-up: a retrospective case series study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2022 23 181. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05108-z)
- 123↑
Zenke Y, Sakai A, Oshige T, Moritani S, Fuse Y, Maehara T, & Nakamura T. Clinical results of volar locking plate for distal radius fractures: conventional versus minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 2011 25 425–431. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182008c83)
- 124↑
Żyluk A, Skala K, & Szlosser Z. A comparison of outcomes of K-wire vs plate fixation for distal radial fractures with regard to patients’ quality of life. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica 2018 84 546–553.
- 125↑
Mellstrand Navarro C, Ahrengart L, Törnqvist H, & Ponzer S. Volar locking plate or external fixation with optional addition of K-wires for dorsally displaced distal radius fractures: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 2016 30 217–224. (https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000519)
- 126↑
Gou Q, Xiong X, Cao D, He Y, & Li X. Volar locking plate versus external fixation for unstable distal radius fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2021 22 433. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04312-7)
- 127↑
Newington L, Harris EC, & Walker-Bone K. Carpal tunnel syndrome and work. Best Practice and Research. Clinical Rheumatology 2015 29 440–453. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2015.04.026)
- 128↑
Oldrini LM, Feltri P, Albanese J, Lucchina S, Filardo G, & Candrian C. Volar locking plate vs cast immobilization for distal radius fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EFORT Open Reviews 2022 7 644–652. (https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-22-0022)
- 129↑
Zhang B, Chang H, Yu K, Bai J, Tian D, Zhang G, Shao X, & Zhang Y. Intramedullary nail versus volar locking plate fixation for the treatment of extra-articular or simple intra-articular distal radius fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis. International Orthopaedics 2017 41 2161–2169. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3460-z)
- 130↑
Żyluk A, & Puchalski P. Complex regional pain syndrome: observations on diagnosis, treatment and definition of a new subgroup. Journal of Hand Surgery 2013 38 599–606. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193412469143)
- 131↑
Bentohami A, de Burlet K, de Korte N, van den Bekerom MP, Goslings JC, & Schep NW. Complications following volar locking plate fixation for distal radial fractures: a systematic review. Journal of Hand Surgery 2014 39 745–754. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193413511936)
- 132↑
Azzi AJ, Aldekhayel S, Boehm KS, & Zadeh T. Tendon Rupture and tenosynovitis following internal fixation of distal radius fractures: a systematic review. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2017 139 717e–24e. (https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003076)
- 133↑
Kunes JA, Hong DY, Hellwinkel JE, Tedesco LJ, & Strauch RJ. Extensor tendon injury after volar locking plating for distal radius fractures: a systematic review. Hand 2022 17(1_suppl) 87S–94S. (https://doi.org/10.1177/15589447211068186)
- 134↑
Zhang X, Zhang Y, Fan J, Yuan F, Tang Q, & Xian CJ. Analyses of fracture line distribution in intra-articular distal radius fractures. Radiologia Medica 2019 124 613–619. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-019-01025-9)
- 135↑
Wall LB, Brodt MD, Silva MJ, Boyer MI, & Calfee RP. The effects of screw length on stability of simulated osteoporotic distal radius fractures fixed with volar locking plates. Journal of Hand Surgery 2012 37 446–453. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.12.013)
- 136↑
Eng K, Gil S, & Page R. Diaphyseal screw prominence in distal radius volar plating. Journal of Wrist Surgery 2020 9 214–218. (https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1702930)
- 137↑
Fowler J. The conservative surgery of the hand. British Medical Journal 1880 1 764–765. (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.1012.764-a)
- 138↑
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. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2011 93 2146–2153. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01597)
- 139↑
Yamamoto M, Fujihara Y, Fujihara N, & Hirata H. A systematic review of volar locking plate removal after distal radius fracture. Injury 2017 48 2650–2656. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.10.010)
- 140↑
Lawson A, Na M, Naylor JM, Lewin AM, & Harris IA. Volar locking plate fixation versus closed reduction for distal radial fractures in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JBJS Reviews 2021 9 e20.00022. (https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.20.00022)
- 141↑
Li-hai Z, Ya-nan W, Zhi M, Li-cheng Z, Hong-da L, Huan Y, Xiao-xie L, & Pei-fu T. Volar locking plate versus external fixation for the treatment of unstable distal radial fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Surgical Research 2015 193 324–333. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2014.06.018)
- 142↑
Franceschi F, Franceschetti E, Paciotti M, Cancilleri F, Maffulli N, & Denaro V. Volar locking plates versus K-wire/pin fixation for the treatment of distal radial fractures: a systematic review and quantitative synthesis. British Medical Bulletin 2015 115 91–110. (https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldv015)
- 143↑
Asadollahi S, & Keith PP. Flexor tendon injuries following plate fixation of distal radius fractures: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2013 14 227–234. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-013-0245-z)
- 144↑
Zong SL, Kan SL, Su LX, & Wang B. Meta-analysis for dorsally displaced distal radius fracture fixation: volar locking plate versus percutaneous Kirschner wires. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 2015 10 108. (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0252-2)
- 145↑
Jayaram M, Wood SM, Kane RL, Yang LY, & Chung KC. Association of open reduction and internal fixation with volar locking plate for distal radius fractures with patient-reported outcomes in older adults: A network meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open 2023 6 e2318715. (https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.18715)
- 146↑
Ward CM, Kuhl TL, & Adams BD. Early complications of volar plating of distal radius fractures and their relationship to surgeon experience. Hand (New York, NY) 2011 6 185–189. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-010-9313-5)
- 147↑
Lucchina S, & Fusetti C. Is early hardware removal compulsory after retention of angled drill guides in palmar locking plates? The role of pronator quadratus reconstruction. Chinese Journal of Traumatology 2010 13 123–125.
- 148↑
Cooke ME, Gu A, Wessel LE, Koo A, Osei DA, & Fufa DT. Incidence of carpal tunnel syndrome after distal radius fracture. Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online 2022 4 324–327. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsg.2022.08.001)