Timing of Type I Open Distal Radius Fracture Fixation Does Not Affect Early Complication Rates

Eric R. Taleghani MD , James Rex MD , Samuel Gerak BA , John Velasquez MS , Kathryn Rost BS , Sonu A. Jain MD, FACS
{"title":"Timing of Type I Open Distal Radius Fracture Fixation Does Not Affect Early Complication Rates","authors":"Eric R. Taleghani MD ,&nbsp;James Rex MD ,&nbsp;Samuel Gerak BA ,&nbsp;John Velasquez MS ,&nbsp;Kathryn Rost BS ,&nbsp;Sonu A. Jain MD, FACS","doi":"10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.09.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>There is limited published evidence regarding the optimal management of type I open fractures of the distal radius. The purpose of this study was to compare short-term complication rates among open fractures of the distal radius, with attention to the timing of management of type I fractures. Our hypothesis was that there would not be a temporal association between treatment and infection for type I open distal radius fractures (DRFs).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective review of all open DRFs at a single level-1 trauma center over a 10-year period was performed. Patients were grouped based on Gustilo Anderson open fracture classification. The primary outcome measures were superficial and deep infection rates in all patients with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. A subgroup analysis was performed for Gustilo Anderson type I injuries with a 3-month follow-up based on time to surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Seventy-one patients with open DRFs were included for analysis with an average follow-up of 16.7 months. There was a higher rate of deep infection (30%) and average number of revision surgeries (3.0) in the type III cohort compared with both type II (4% and 0.6) and type I (0% and 0.39) cohorts. A subgroup analysis of 63 type I fractures with a minimum of 3-month follow-up revealed zero infections, with no difference in other complications or number of revision surgeries among patients definitively managed within 24 hours, 24–72 hours, and greater than 72 hours. Two patients were managed nonoperatively, without complication.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Type I open DRFs differ from higher grade DRFs with regard to demographics and injury characteristics, along with infection, complication, and reoperation rates. With no infections in the type I DRF cohort and no difference in complication rates based on time to debridement, our data suggest that it is safe to manage type I open DRFs similarly to closed injuries regarding surgical timing.</div></div><div><h3>Type of study/level of evidence</h3><div>Therapeutic III.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36920,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online","volume":"7 1","pages":"Pages 1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589514124001890","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

There is limited published evidence regarding the optimal management of type I open fractures of the distal radius. The purpose of this study was to compare short-term complication rates among open fractures of the distal radius, with attention to the timing of management of type I fractures. Our hypothesis was that there would not be a temporal association between treatment and infection for type I open distal radius fractures (DRFs).

Methods

A retrospective review of all open DRFs at a single level-1 trauma center over a 10-year period was performed. Patients were grouped based on Gustilo Anderson open fracture classification. The primary outcome measures were superficial and deep infection rates in all patients with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. A subgroup analysis was performed for Gustilo Anderson type I injuries with a 3-month follow-up based on time to surgery.

Results

Seventy-one patients with open DRFs were included for analysis with an average follow-up of 16.7 months. There was a higher rate of deep infection (30%) and average number of revision surgeries (3.0) in the type III cohort compared with both type II (4% and 0.6) and type I (0% and 0.39) cohorts. A subgroup analysis of 63 type I fractures with a minimum of 3-month follow-up revealed zero infections, with no difference in other complications or number of revision surgeries among patients definitively managed within 24 hours, 24–72 hours, and greater than 72 hours. Two patients were managed nonoperatively, without complication.

Conclusions

Type I open DRFs differ from higher grade DRFs with regard to demographics and injury characteristics, along with infection, complication, and reoperation rates. With no infections in the type I DRF cohort and no difference in complication rates based on time to debridement, our data suggest that it is safe to manage type I open DRFs similarly to closed injuries regarding surgical timing.

Type of study/level of evidence

Therapeutic III.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents The Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Practice: A National Survey of Hand Surgeons Outcomes of Joint Arthrodesis in Patients With Systemic Sclerosis Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Gap Osteotomy Versus Dorsal Opening Wedge Osteotomy for Extra-Articular Distal Radius Malunion and Internal Fixation Using a Volar Locking Plate Without Bone Graft Operative Versus Nonoperative Management of Pyogenic Flexor Tenosynovitis: An Analysis of the National Readmissions Database
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1