No Difference in Adverse Events Between Surgically Treated Reduced and Unreduced Distal Radius Fractures

To determine if closed reduction is worthwhile for the subset of patients who choose operative treatment before attempted reduction of their distal radius fracture. We hypothesize that there are no differences in (1) adverse events and (2) subsequent surgeries between patients treated with manipulative reduction compared with those that were splinted without reduction.

Retrospective cohort study.

Three affiliated urban hospitals in a single city in the United States.

One thousand five hundred eleven consecutive adult patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation of their distal radius fracture between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2012, of whom 102 (7%) were not reduced before surgery.

Manipulative reduction compared with splinting without reduction.

Adverse events were defined as any infections, hematomas treated operatively, disproportionate finger stiffness, (transient) neuropathology after surgery, delayed carpal tunnel release, malunion, reoperation for loss of alignment, hardware removal, and tendon ruptures within 1 year after surgery. Outcome measures were grouped to determine the overall adverse event rate and subsequent surgery rate.

We found no difference in specific adverse events between unreduced and reduced fractures. After adjusting for possible confounding variables by logistic regression, we found no difference in overall rates of adverse events (adjusted odds ratio unreduced fractures 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.67-2.0) and subsequent surgeries (adjusted odds ratio unreduced fractures 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.23-1.8).

Leaving the fracture unreduced before surgery was not associated with increased adverse events or subsequent surgeries. For patients who make an informed decision to undergo operative treatment for their closed neurovascular intact displaced distal radius fracture, manipulative reduction may not be helpful.