Rehabilitation after Distal Radius Fractures: Opportunities for Improvement.

Background Exercises are frequently prescribed to regain function; yet there is no consensus on a standardized protocol, and adherence is low. Smart technology innovations, such as mobile applications, may be useful to provide home-based patient support in rehabilitation after distal radius fractures. Purposes Our purpose was to establish the potential of digital innovations for support and monitoring of patients and treatment adherence in rehabilitation programs, and additionally, to compare the current practice among physiotherapists to the various wrist exercise regimens and their effectiveness as described in the literature. Methods Standard practice, including the use of support tools for treatment adherence, was evaluated using a nationwide survey. Then, scientific databases were searched using "distal radius fracture" and "physiotherapy" or "exercise therapy," and related search terms, up until 23 March 2023. Results of the survey and literature review were compared. Results The survey was completed by 92 therapists. Nonstandardized support tools were used by 81.6% of respondents; 53.2% used some form of technology, including taking photos on the patients' smartphone for home reference. In the literature review, 23 studies were included, of which five described an exercise protocol. Treatment adherence was not reported in any of the included studies. Two studies described the use of smart technology or support tools. Conclusions There is no consensus on a standardized exercise protocol for rehabilitation after distal radius fractures, neither from a systematic literature search nor from a nationwide survey. Smart technology may facilitate monitoring of patients and exercise adherence, hereby supporting self-efficacy and improving adherence and outcomes.

Open Ankle Arthrodesis: A Retrospective Analysis Comparing Different Fixation Methods.

A wide variation of surgical options, complications, and union rates are reported in the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis. However, open ankle arthrodesis remains the golden standard for ankle arthritis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the union rate and complication rate as well as identify potential risk factors for different methods of fixation in patients with end-stage ankle arthritis of different etiology. In total, 42 ankles of 41 patients with ankle osteoarthritis were included for this single-center retrospective study. The mean age was 50 years (range 22-75 years). Twenty patients were treated with screw-fixation, 14 with plate(s) and 8 with intramedullary nail. The results of this study showed an overall union rate of 97.6% (41 of the 42 operated ankles) and an overall complication rate of 21.4% (9 events). The mean follow-up time was 16 months (range 2.5-83.0 months). Complications consisted of 1 nonunion, 4 deep infections, 2 cases of wound dehiscence, 1 delayed union and 1 malalignment of the ankle joint. The plate-fixation group demonstrated significantly higher infections when compared with screw and intramedullary nail fixation (p = .017). There were no other significant variables for incidence of complications between patients in the uncomplicated and complicated group. This study achieved good clinical results for different methods of fixation in open ankle arthrodesis. In specific, the use of intramedullary nail provides excellent results for end-stage ankle arthritis with high union rate and a low complication rate.

Open Ankle Arthrodesis: a Systematic Review of Approaches and Fixation Methods.

BACKGROUND: Open ankle arthrodesis (OAA) remains the most widely used operation in end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. However, there is a large variation in terms of approach and fixation methods. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of different approaches and fixation methods on the union rate, complication rate and functional outcome in OAA. METHODS: A search of the online databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library was performed to identify patients who underwent OAA with screw- and/or plate-fixation. RESULTS: We identified 38 studies, including 1250 patients (1290 ankles). The union rate was 98% (95% CI 0.95-0.99) for the anterior, 96% (95% CI 0.92-0.98) for the lateral and 96% (95% CI 0.68-1.00) for the combined medial/lateral approach. Screw-fixation achieved an overall union rate of 96% (95% CI 0.93-0.98) and plate-fixation 99% (95% CI 0.96-0.99). The overall complication rate was 14%, 16% and 31% for the anterior, lateral and combined medial/lateral approaches respectively. It stood at 18% for screw-fixation and 9% for plate-fixation. The infection rate was 4%, 6% and 8% for the anterior, lateral and combined approaches respectively. Screw-fixation had an infection rate of 6% and plate-fixation 3%. The postoperative AOFAS scores were 76.8, 76.5 and 67.6 for the anterior, lateral and combined approaches respectively and 74.9 for screw- compared to 78.5 for plate-fixation. These differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: This study, the first of its kind, found little difference in terms of results between approach and fixation method used in OAA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IIa.