Video Experimental Relacionado
Updated: Jan 18, 2026
Minimally Invasive Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Using Sagittal Alignment Screws and A Trauma Reduction Device
Published on: November 8, 2024
Clasificaciones de Fracturas Distales de Radio en la Vida Real: Fiabilidad y Cómo Cambian el Tratamiento
Sang Anh Nguyen1,2, Anh Hoang Dang1,3, Doanh Quoc Tran1,2
1Vietnam Military Medical University, Ha Noi City, Vietnam.
Purpose:
To evaluate the reliability, clinical utility, and prognostic value of distal radius fracture (DRF) classification systems and to translate current evidence into a decision-oriented framework for everyday care.
Methods:
We conducted a PRISMA-guided narrative review with structured searches of PubMed and Scopus (January 2010 to September 2025). Eligible adult studies assessed at least one DRF classification (eg, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association, Fernandez, Frykman, Melone, IDEAL) and reported reliability, clinical utility (treatment selection, complications/reoperation), or prognostic associations (patient-reported outcome measures, radiographic restoration). Study selection, extraction, and risk of bias assessment followed predefined procedures; data were synthesized thematically by imaging modality, rater expertise, and category granularity.
Results:
Interobserver agreement was typically fair-moderate on radiographs; computed tomography yielded modest improvements. Increasing granularity (more categories/subcategories) consistently reduced κ/intraclass correlation coefficient, while a brief rater calibration session improved agreement. Across studies linking taxonomy to care, classification alone rarely changed management once radiographic thresholds of instability (shortening, tilt, intra-articular step-off) and patient factors (age/bone quality, functional demand) were applied. Prognostic associations between subtype and patient-reported outcome measures were inconsistent after adjustment for reduction quality. We operationalize these findings via reliability, morphology, age of bone, patient demands, yielding actionable pathways with explicit quality targets: restoration of radial height and tilt, intra-articular step-off ≤2 mm, and early motion.
Conclusions:
The DRF classifications remain valuable as a shared language and research scaffold, but their stand-alone reliability and prognostic power are limited. A pragmatic, reliability, morphology, age of bone, patient demands, yielding actionable pathway-based approach integrates classification with instability thresholds and patient factors to support auditable, evidence-based decisions.
Type Of Study/Level Of Evidence:
Therapeutic V.
