A comparison of sugar-tong and volar-dorsal splints for provisional immobilization of distal radius fractures in the adult population

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.

Comparison of Short-Arm Immobilization and Long-Arm Immobilization in Conservatively Managed Distal Radius Fractures: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Distal radius fractures are often treated conservatively with immobilization. Immobilizing above the elbow limits forearm rotation, though recent literature has suggested the effects on radiographic or functional outcomes may be negligible. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze the radiographic and functional outcome scores of distal radius fractures managed with short-arm (SA) immobilization and long-arm (LA) immobilization. An electronic systematic search was performed of the PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception to October 5, 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with acute distal radius fractures undergoing nonoperative treatment (involving application/maintenance of immobilization) comparing above-elbow versus below-elbow constructs were included. The outcomes of interest were changes in radiographic parameters (loss of volar tilt [VT], radial height [RH], and radial inclination [RI]), loss of reduction, requirement for surgery, and patient-reported functional outcomes (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, or Hand [DASH] or Quick DASH survey). The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 was used for study quality assessment. The effect size of the interventions was assessed using random effect models to calculate mean differences (MDs) for continuous variables and odds ratios (ORs) for categorical variables. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated for patient-reported functional outcome scores. Nine studies involving 983 cases were included, including 497 SA and 486 LA. No statistically significant differences were observed with regards to VT (P = 0.83), RH (P = 0.81), RI (P = 0.35), loss of reduction (P = 0.33), requirement for surgery (P = 0.33), or patient-reported functional outcomes (P = 0.10). There was no difference in radiographic outcomes, need for surgery, or functional scores among patients treated with SA and LA immobilization. Utilizing SA immobilization is a safe option for conservative management of distal radius fractures and the benefits of mitigating complications associated with LA immobilization may supersede the theoretical limited forearm rotational stability observed with SA immobilization. Further study is required to determine the optimal method of SA immobilization.

The Effect Immobilization Mechanisms Have on Radiographic Outcomes and Complication Rates in the Conservative Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures: A Systematic Review

Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are among the most common fractures in the United States. Despite their high incidence, there is no consensus on the optimal type of cast or splint to treat these fractures. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the available literature pertaining to the outcomes for different constructs used to conservatively treat DRFs. A literature search of PubMed, Medline, and Embase was conducted to identify research comparing the outcomes of various immobilization mechanisms. In particular, endpoints included complications (eg, loss of reduction, pain), radiographic outcomes, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores. A total of 1655 articles were identified during the literature search, and 22 ultimately fulfilled inclusion criteria. These 22 studies included 1826 conservatively treated DRFs. The different immobilization mechanisms were divided into 8 groupings: above-elbow casts, above-elbow splints, below-elbow casts, below-elbow splints, gutter or spica casts, gutter or spica splints, dorsal-volar splints, and dorsal splints. Qualitative review of the studies determined that below-elbow constructs result in equal or better functional and radiologic outcomes when compared with above-elbow constructs. Meta-analysis demonstrated that a statistically significant difference (P = .04) existed in the incidence of loss of reduction between the immobilization constructs, although post hoc analysis did not detect significant differences between 2 particular constructs.

Clinical and Radiographic Comparison of Splinting Constructs for Distal Radius Fractures: An Effort to Free the Elbow

OBJECTIVES

To compare short-term functional outcomes, reduction loss, and rates of surgery for distal radius fractures initially immobilized with a traditional sugar-tong splint versus clamshell splint freeing the elbow.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized trial.

SETTING

Level 1 trauma center.

PATIENTS

Eighty-nine consecutive patients sustaining distal radius fractures were enrolled between 2018 and 2020. Short-term first follow-up (1-2 weeks) radiographic parameters and 6 weeks for functional questionnaires were established to assess initial outcomes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were reduction loss based on radiographic criteria, rate of surgery, and short-term patient functional outcome using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score.

RESULTS

There were no differences noted in DASH scores ( P -value = 0.8) or loss of reduction ( P -value = 0.69), and splint type was not correlated with likelihood to have surgery ( P = 0.22). A binomial regression model demonstrated splint type was not a significant predictor variable of loss of fracture reduction in the regression model.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest both sugar-tong splint and clamshell splint construct are acceptable options in the acute management of distal radius fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BET 1: should Colles' fractures be splinted in a long or short arm cast?

A short-cut review of the available medical literature was carried out to establish whether elbow immobilisation is required after closed reduction of a distal radial fracture. After abstract review, six papers were found to answer this clinical question using the detailed search strategy. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results and study weaknesses of these papers are tabulated. It is concluded that elbow immobilisation is not required.