Comparison of operatively and nonoperatively treated isolated mason type II radial head fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Radial head fractures are the most common bony injury of the elbow in adults. The current literature does not agree on whether isolated stable type II radial head fractures should be treated operatively or nonoperatively. This review aims to determine the preferred treatment for Mason type II radial head fractures and compare the outcomes of conservative and surgical treatment. METHODS: Our study used PRISMA guidelines and conducted a thorough search of multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases, initially identifying 545 relevant publications on surgical and conservative treatment of Mason type II radial head fractures. The final search date for this study is July 7, 2024.Through a comprehensive meta-analysis, we evaluated several outcomes, including functional scores (DASH, OES, and MEPS scores), clinical outcomes (elbow flexion, elbow extension deficit, elbow pronation, and elbow supination), and complication rate (total complications and elbow pain). The mean difference (MD) was compared for continuous outcomes, and the odds ratios (ORs) were compared for categorical outcomes. RESULT: A total of 271 patients from 4 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 142 patients received surgical treatment and 129 patients received non-surgical treatment. The study found no statistically significant differences between surgical and non-surgical treatments in DASH, OES, MEPS, elbow flexion, elbow extension impairment, and elbow pain. Compared with surgical treatment, non-surgical treatment was associated with greater elbow pronation (OR = -3.10, 95% CI = [-4.96, -1.25], P = 0.55, I2 = 0%) and a lower complication rate (OR = 5.54, 95% CI = [1.79, 17.14], P = 0.42, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Based on the current evidence, conservative management of isolated Mason II radial head fractures yields favorable therapeutic outcomes with a low incidence of complications.

Non- or minimally displaced distal radius fractures in adult patients < 50 years of age : Three weeks of cast immobilisation versus one week of brace immobilisation: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, non- or minimally displaced distal radius fractures are treated by 3 to 5 weeks of cast immobilisation. Many patients with a distal radius fracture suffer from long-term functional restrictions, which might be related to stiffness due to cast immobilisation. Current literature indicates that 1 week of immobilisation might be safe; however, no level 1 evidence is available. This trial aims to compare 1 week of brace immobilisation with 3 weeks of cast immobilisation in patients with distal radius fractures that do not need reduction. METHODS: The aim of this trial is to evaluate the non-inferiority of 1 week of brace immobilisation in patients with non- or minimally displaced distal radius fractures. A two-armed single blinded multicentre randomised clinical trial will be conducted in three hospitals. Adult patients, between 18 and 50 years old, independent for activities of daily living, with a non- or minimally displaced distal radius fracture can be included in this study. The intervention group is treated with 1 week of brace immobilisation, and the control group with 3 weeks of cast immobilisation. Primary outcome is the patient-reported outcome measured by the Patient-Related Wrist Evaluation score (PRWE) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes are patient-reported outcome measured by the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score at 6 weeks and 6 months, PRWE at 6 weeks, range of motion, patient-reported pain score measured by VAS score, radiological outcome (dorsal/volar tilt, radial height, ulnar variance, presence of intra-articular step off), complications and cost-effectiveness measured by the EuroQol 5 Dimension questionnaire, Medical Consumption Questionnaire and Productivity Cost Questionnaire. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence on the optimal period of immobilisation in non-operatively treated displaced and reduced distal radius fractures. Both treatment options are accepted treatment protocols and both treatment options have a low risk of complications. Follow-up will be according to the current treatment protocol. This study will provide level 1 evidence on the optimal period and way of immobilisation for non- or minimally displaced distal radius fractures in adult patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ABR 81638 | NL81638.029.22 | www.toetsingonline.nl . 18th of October 2023.

A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Treatments for Displaced Radial Head Fractures.

Background: The aim of this study is to compare the surgical and non-operative management of displaced radial head fractures via a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: RCTs comparing management of isolated, displaced radial head fractures in adults were included in our review and statistical analysis. A systematic review of electronic databases (Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library) were screened for comparative RCTs reporting on the management of displaced radial head fractures in August 2021. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for eligibility and an assessment of bias was performed for each study. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of the included RCTs was performed. Results: Five RCTs (326 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. Treatment methods included radial head arthroplasty (RHA), open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) with metal implants (ORIF-M), ORIF with biodegradable implants (ORIF-B) and non-operative management. In our network meta-analysis of 'good' or 'excellent' patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), RHA was significantly favourable to ORIF-M (OR: 0.04, CrI: 0.0011, 0.87), ORIF-B (OR: 0.1 CrI: 0.00076, 6.37). Nonoperative treatment was not shown to be significantly worse than RHA (OR: 0.01 CrI: 2.5e-0.5, 3.61). Conclusions: This network meta-analysis shows that in displaced radial head fractures, RHA is associated with significantly superior functional PROMs than ORIF-M based on the evidence available. Nonoperative management has not been shown to be significantly worse. Level of Evidence: Level III (Therapeutic).

Examining the role of ChatGPT in the management of distal radius fractures: insights into its accuracy and consistency.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of distal radius fractures remains a challenge for orthopaedic surgeons. The emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Large Language Models (LLMs), especially ChatGPT, affords significant potential in improving healthcare and research. This study aims to assess the accuracy and consistency of ChatGPT's knowledge in managing distal radius fractures, with a focus on its capability to provide information for patients and assist in the decision-making processes of orthopaedic clinicians. METHODS: We presented ChatGPT with seven questions on distal radius fracture management over two sessions, resulting in 14 responses. These questions covered a range of topics, including patient inquiries and orthopaedic clinical decision-making. We requested references for each response and involved two orthopaedic registrars and two senior orthopaedic surgeons to evaluate response accuracy and consistency. RESULTS: All 14 responses contained a mix of both correct and incorrect information. Among the 47 cited references, 13% were accurate, 28% appeared to be fabricated, 57% were incorrect, and 2% were correct but deemed inappropriate. Consistency was observed in 71% of the responses. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT demonstrates significant limitations in accuracy and consistency when providing information on distal radius fractures. In its current format, it offers limited utility for patient education and clinical decision-making.

Is casting of displaced paediatric distal forearm fractures non-inferior to reduction under general anaesthesia? Study protocol for a pragmatic, randomized, controlled non-inferiority multicentre trial (the casting trial).

BACKGROUND: Treatment of displaced distal forearm fractures in children has traditionally been closed reduction and pin fixation, although they might heal and remodel without surgery with no functional impairment. No randomized controlled trials have been published comparing the patient-reported functional outcome following non-surgical or surgical treatment of displaced paediatric distal forearm fractures. METHODS: A multicentre non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. Children aged 4-10 years with a displaced distal forearm fracture will be offered inclusion, if the on-duty orthopaedic surgeon finds indication for surgical intervention. They will be allocated equally to non-surgical treatment (intervention) or surgical treatment of surgeon's choice (comparator). Follow-up will be 4 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome is the between-group difference in 12 months QuickDASH score. We will need a sample of 40 patients to show a 15-point difference with 80% power. DISCUSSION: The results of this trial may change our understanding of the healing potential of paediatric distal forearm fractures. If non-inferiority of non-surgical treatment is shown, the results may contribute to a reduction in future surgeries on children, who in turn can be treated without the risks and psychological burdens associated with surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (ID: NCT05736068). Date of registry: 17 February 2023.

Redisplacement of reduced distal radius fractures in adults: does the type of casting play a role? The CAST study, a multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial.

Aims: It is not clear which type of casting provides the best initial treatment in adults with a distal radial fracture. Given that between 32% and 64% of adequately reduced fractures redisplace during immobilization in a cast, preventing redisplacement and a disabling malunion or secondary surgery is an aim of treatment. In this study, we investigated whether circumferential casting leads to fewer the redisplacement of fewer fractures and better one-year outcomes compared with plaster splinting. Methods: In a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, two-period cluster-randomized superiority trial, we compared these two types of casting. Recruitment took place in ten hospitals. Eligible patients aged ≥ 18 years with a displaced distal radial fracture, which was acceptably aligned after closed reduction, were included. The primary outcome measure was the rate of redisplacement within five weeks of immobilization. Secondary outcomes were the rate of complaints relating to the cast, clinical outcomes at three months, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (using the numerical rating scale (NRS), the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), and Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) scores), and adverse events such as the development of compartment syndrome during one year of follow-up. We used multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression for the analysis of the primary outcome measure. Results: The study included 420 patients. There was no significant difference between the rate of redisplacement of the fracture between the groups: 47% (n = 88) for those treated with a plaster splint and 49% (n = 90) for those treated with a circumferential cast (odds ratio 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.70); p = 0.854). Patients treated in a plaster splint reported significantly more pain than those treated with a circumferential cast, during the first week of treatment (estimated mean NRS 4.7 (95% CI 4.3 to 5.1) vs 4.1 (95% CI 3.7 to 4.4); p = 0.014). The rate of complaints relating to the cast, clinical outcomes and PROMs did not differ significantly between the groups (p > 0.05). Compartment syndrome did not occur. Conclusion: Circumferential casting did not result in a significantly different rate of redisplacement of the fracture compared with the use of a plaster splint. There were comparable outcomes in both groups.

Presentations and management of hospitalized patients with upper extremity fractures at a level 1 trauma center: a 5-year observational study.

BACKGROUND: Upper extremity injuries (UEIs) are common in the emergency departments, yet they are under-reported in developing countries. This study examined the frequency, injury characteristics, and treatment approaches of upper extremity fractures (UEFs) among hospitalized trauma patients in a nationally representative population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational study including all the hospitalized patients with UEFs in the only level 1 trauma center in Qatar between July 2015 and August 2020. Comparative analyses were performed according to injury mechanisms, severity, and management approach. RESULTS: A total of 2,023 patients sustained UEIs with an average age of 34.4 ± 12.9 years, and 92% were males. Motor vehicle crashes (MVCs; 42.3%) were the primary cause of shoulder girdle injuries in 48.3% of cases. Fractures of the radius, ulna, and hands occurred in 30.8, 16.5 and 14.5%, respectively. Young adults were more involved in MVCs and motorcycle crashes (MCCs), while pedestrians who were typically older had a higher rate of humerus fractures. Patients with MCCs had a higher rate of clavicle and ulna fractures. Pedestrians were at risk of serious injuries, with a higher mean injury severity score and lower Glasgow Coma Scale. CONCLUSION: Most UEFs patients were young males and mainly affected by MVCs. Shoulder girdle, particularly clavicle and scapula/glenoid fractures, emerged as common injury sites. The study highlighted the potential risk of pedestrian injuries, as reflected in higher injury severity, concomitant injuries, and higher mortality. Future studies are needed to optimize preventive measures by incorporating insights into specific injury mechanisms and patterns of UEIs.

Torus fractures - diagnosis and management.

Torus fractures are a common paediatric injury involving the distal radius. Patients typically present following a fall onto the outstretched hand, with wrist pain as their primary complaint. The principal investigation of choice is a plain radiograph of the wrist joint. These fractures should be managed with a soft-bandage and immediate discharge approach and do not require specialist follow-up. Clinicians have historically had differing views regarding optimal management of torus fractures. It is therefore important for hospital clinicians to uniformly understand the most up-to-date management of this condition. This review provides an overview of the epidemiology, anatomy, diagnosis and management, with an aim to improve outcomes.

Volar Distal Radius Buckle Fractures: Is Bracing and Home Management Safe?

BACKGROUND: A removable brace with home management is widely accepted treatment for distal radius buckle fractures, which most commonly involve the dorsal cortex. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine if a removable brace and home management treatment is safe for volar distal radius buckle fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Isolated distal radius buckle fractures in children (3-16 years) diagnosed at an acute care visit (April 1, 2019 to May 31, 2022) were identified. Final diagnosis was confirmed using strict criteria including cortical buckling without cortical breach or physeal involvement. Cortical buckling was categorized as either dorsal or volar. Demographic data, mechanism of injury, treatment, and any complications were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-three fractures were either dorsal (254, 76%) or volar (79, 24%) buckle fractures. Mean age (SD) for volar fractures (9.3 [2.2 years]; range, 4-14 years) was significantly higher than for dorsal fractures (8.5 (3.0 years); range, 3-15 years; P = 0.012). More girls had volar fractures (48 [60%], P = 0.006). Most fractures occurred after a standing-height fall. Two hundred forty-four (96%) dorsal and 76 (96%) volar fractures were initially treated with a removable brace. Two hundred fourteen (84%) dorsal and 66 (84%) volar fractures had orthopedic follow-up. Brace treatment continued for 167 (167/204, 82%) dorsal and 56 (56/63, 89%) volar fractures. Treatment changed from initial brace to cast for 37 (37/204, 18%) dorsal fractures and 7 (7/63, 11%) volar fractures, influenced by caregiver preference and/or sport participation requirements. Only 1 (1/79, 1%) patient with a volar fracture returned for an additional visit for persistent pain. CONCLUSIONS: When diagnosis of volar buckle fracture is made using the same strict criteria used for dorsal buckle fractures, removable brace and home management treatment is safe. Shared decision making with caregivers may alter buckle fracture treatment.

Are Clinical Practice Guidelines Representative of Patients With Distal Radius Fractures? A Review of Patient Demographics and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used to Inform Guidelines.

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are recommendations developed for broad application to optimize high-quality care and decision-making. The composition of patients and outcome measures used in studies informing CPGs; however, has not been rigorously evaluated. With growing evidence that outcomes in musculoskeletal surgery vary by sociocultural factors, we aimed to: (1) review the linguistic, racial, and ethnic representation of the patients in the studies informing CPGs for distal radius fractures and (2) assess their use of linguistically and culturally adapted patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons website was used to identify relevant studies. Key variables were extracted, including inclusion and exclusion criteria, language of study, patient language and proficiency, patient race and ethnicity, and use of translated or culturally adapted PROMs. If provided, the clinical trial registration page for the study was evaluated. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the frequency of each variable. RESULTS: Fifty-four published texts were evaluated. Participant language was reported in four (7%) of the published texts and six (11%) when including the clinical trial registration information. Of the published texts, one (2%) reported ethnic group/race data and 40 (74%) used PROMs. Of those using PROMs, eight (20%) of 40 reported the use of translated PROMs, and three (8%) of 40 reported the use of culturally adapted PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of reporting of linguistic, racial, and ethnic data and inconsistent use of PROMs, particularly those that are translated and culturally adapted, in studies included in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons CPG for distal radius fractures. As sociocultural characteristics and PROMs are associated with outcomes, ensuring they are broadly represented in studies, may improve equity and shared decision-making. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Greater inclusion and reporting of demographic data and PROMs are required in musculoskeletal studies to ensure broad applicability and advance health equity.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of soft bandage and immediate discharge versus rigid immobilization in children with distal radius torus fractures.

Aims: The aim of this trial was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a soft bandage and immediate discharge, compared with rigid immobilization, in children aged four to 15 years with a torus fracture of the distal radius. Methods: A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted from the UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective, as well as a broader societal point of view. Health resources and quality of life (the youth version of the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-Y)) data were collected, as part of the Forearm Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) multicentre randomized controlled trial over a six-week period, using trial case report forms and patient-completed questionnaires. Costs and health gains (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) were estimated for the two trial treatment groups. Regression was used to estimate the probability of the new treatment being cost-effective at a range of 'willingness-to-pay' thresholds, which reflect a range of costs per QALY at which governments are typically prepared to reimburse for treatment. Results: The offer of a soft bandage significantly reduced cost per patient (saving £12.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) -£5.30 to £19.80)) while QALYs were similar (QALY difference between groups: 0.0013 (95% CI -0.0004 to 0.003)). The high probability (95%) that offering a bandage is a cost-effective option was consistent when examining the data in a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: In addition to the known clinical equivalence, this study found that the offer of a bandage reduced cost compared with rigid immobilization among children with a torus fracture of the distal radius. While the cost saving was small for each patient, the high frequency of these injuries indicates a significant saving across the healthcare system.

Ulnar Neuropathy after Distal Radius Fractures - A Case Series and Review of Literature.

Background: Ulnar neuropathy after a distal radius fracture is rare and has limited reports in literature. As such, there is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment and management of such injuries. We report our experience with managing these uncommon injuries. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted where patients presenting with ulnar neuropathy after sustaining a distal radius fracture were identified from January 2021 to December 2023 from our hospital database. Results: A total of four patients were identified. All of them underwent surgical fixation for their respective fractures. None of them underwent immediate or delayed exploration and decompression of the ulnar nerve. All patients had clinical improvement at 3 months after their initial injuries. Three patients eventually had resolution of the neuropathy between 5 and 9 months post injury, while one had partial recovery and developed a neuroma but declined surgery due to symptoms minimally affecting work and daily activities. Conclusions: Ulnar neuropathy after distal radius fractures may not be as rare as previously thought. Expectant management of the neuropathy would be a reasonable treatment as long as there is no evidence of nerve discontinuity or translocation and that there is clinical and/or electrodiagnostic improvement at 3-4 months after the initial injury. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic).

Early range of motion results in good elbow function following conservative treatment of non-displaced radial head fractures.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the range of motion (ROM), elbow function and predictors for good elbow function after conservative treatment of non-displaced radial head fractures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients with non-displaced radial head fractures (displacement < 2 mm), that were diagnosed between January 1st 2017 and December 31st 2021 in a level I trauma center, were included in this retrospective case series and the charts were evaluated for ROM and elbow function. Elbow function was categorized as "good" or "bad" depending on the ROM measured defined by Morrey et al. Overall, 73 patients (33 male, 40 female) with an average age of 38 years (+/- 13 years) could be included. RESULTS: Conservative treatment had good clinical results for ROM and elbow function. After 6 weeks mean flexion was 131° (SD 13°), extension 8° (SD 7°), Pronation 83° (SD 11°) and Supination 83° (SD 13). Patients with a good elbow function after one week showed a good elbow function after completing the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical assessment after one week should always be performed and the study showed that it is a good predictor for good elbow function. In cases of bad elbow function further controls should be considered.

Is reduction necessary in overriding metaphyseal distal radius fractures in children under 11 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the necessity of reduction in the treatment of overriding metaphyseal distal radius fractures (DRF) in children under 11 years. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to retrieve studies published from inception to 2023. Two reviewers independently screened for studies with observational or randomized control design comparing two treatments for overriding metaphyseal DRF in patients under 11 years: simple casting without reduction (SC group) versus closed reduction plus casting or pin fixation (CRC/F group); with varying outcomes reported (CRD471761). The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. RESULTS: Out of 3,024 screened studies, three met the inclusion criteria, 180 children (mean age 7.1 ± 0.9 years) with overriding metaphyseal DRF: SC-group (n = 79) versus CRC/F-group (n = 101). Both treatment groups achieved 100% fracture consolidation without requiring further manipulation. The SC-group showed significantly fewer complications (mean difference [MD] 0.08; 95% CI [0.01, 0.53]; I2 = 22%; P < 0.009) and trends towards better sagittal alignment (MD 5.11; 95% CI [11.92, 1.71]; I2 = 94%; P < 0.14), less reinterventions (MD 0.31; 95% CI [0.01, 8.31]; P < 0.48), and fewer patients with motion limitation at the end of follow-up (MD 0.23; 95% CI [0.03,  1.98]; P < 0.18), although these findings were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a limited number of studies comparing SC versus CRC/F in overriding DRF in children under 11 years, this study suggests that anatomical reduction is not necessary. Treating these fractures with SC, even when presenting with an overriding position, leads to reduced complications, shows a trend towards fewer reinterventions, improved sagittal alignment, and less limitation in patient motion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic review of Level-III studies.

The construct validity and internal consistency of QuickDASH in pediatric patients with upper extremity fractures.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Investigation of treatment options in the pediatric population necessitates the use of valid patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We aimed to assess the construct validity and internal consistency of the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) in the pediatric population with upper extremity fractures treated both operatively and conservatively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: QuickDASH, along with several reference PROMs and objective outcome measures, was obtained from 148 5- to 18-year-old patients with a humeral medial epicondyle fracture or a fracture of the distal forearm in a cross-sectional setting with a single follow-up visit. Spearman's rank correlation and linear regression models were used to assess convergent validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to assess structural validity, and Cronbach's alpha to investigate internal consistency. RESULTS: The direction and magnitude of correlation showed by QuickDASH with reference outcome measures was consistent and demonstrated good convergent validity. EFA indicated a 3-factor model with poor fit indices and structural validity remained questionable. Construct validity was considered acceptable overall. QuickDASH demonstrated good internal consistency with an acceptable Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.75). CONCLUSION: QuickDASH demonstrated acceptable construct validity and good internal consistency and is thus a valid instrument, with some limitations, to assess disability and quality of life in pediatric patients with upper extremity fractures.

Radiographic and clinical outcomes of muenster and sugar tong splints for distal radius fractures: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Non-operative management is typically indicated for extra-articular distal radius fractures. Conservative treatments such as Sugar tong splints (STs) and Muenster splints (MUs) are commonly used. However, there is limited research and outcome data comparing the two splint types. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate and compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of treatment using STs and MUs. METHODS: In this retrospective comparative study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of STs and MUs for the treatment of distal radius fractures. The study included 64 patients who underwent closed reduction (CR) in the emergency room and were treated with either STs or MUs splints (STs group: n = 38, MUs group: n = 26). Initial X-rays, post-CR X-rays, and last outpatient follow-up X-rays were evaluated. Radial height (RH), ulnar variance (UV), radial inclination (RI), and volar tilt (VT) were measured by a blinded investigator. The Quick DASH form was applied to measure patients' satisfaction after treatments. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, initial radiographic measurements, or radiographic measurements immediately after CR between the two groups. However, the overall radiological values deteriorated to some degree in both groups compared to the post-CR images. Furthermore, using a paired test, the STs group showed significant differences in RH and RI, and the MUs group showed significant differences in RH and UV between the last follow-up and post-CR images. CONCLUSIONS: The study concluded that there was no difference in clinical outcomes between the two splint types. However, both STs and MUs groups showed reduced radiographic parameters, and the MUs group showed a significant reduction of RH and UV in the treatment of distal radius fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; Retrospective Comparison; Treatment Study.