Repair of the pronator quadratus after volar plate fixation in distal radius fractures: a systematic review

To position the volar plate on the distal radius fracture site, the pronator quadratus muscle needs to be detached from its distal and radial side and lifted for optimal exposure to the fracture site. Although the conventional approach involves repair of the pronator quadratus, controversy surrounds the merits of this repair. The purpose of this study was to compare the functional outcomes of patients with distal radius fractures treated with pronator quadratus repair after volar plate fixation versus no pronator quadratus repair. A systematic search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, on 23 July 2015. All studies comparing pronator quadratus repair with no pronator quadratus repair in adult patients undergoing volar plate fixation for distal radius fractures were included. The primary outcome was the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included range of motion, grip strength, post-operative pain and complications. A total of 169 patients were included, of which 95 underwent pronator quadratus repair, while 74 patients underwent no pronator quadratus repair. At 12 months follow-up no statistically significant differences in DASH-scores and range of motion were observed between pronator quadratus repair and no repair. Moreover, post-operative pain and complication rates were similar between both groups. At 12 months of follow-up, we do not see any advantages of pronator quadratus repair after volar plate fixation in the distal radius. However, a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn from this systematic review due to a lack of available evidence

External validation of clinical decision rules for children with wrist trauma

Background: Clinical decision rules help to avoid potentially unnecessary radiographs of the wrist, reduce waiting times and save costs. Objective: The primary aim of this study was to provide an overview of all existing non-validated clinical decision rules for wrist trauma in children and to externally validate these rules in a different cohort of patients. Secondarily, we aimed to compare the performance of these rules with the validated Amsterdam Pediatric Wrist Rules. Materials and methods: We included all studies that proposed a clinical prediction or decision rule in children presenting at the emergency department with acute wrist trauma. We performed external validation within a cohort of 379 children. We also calculated the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value of each decision rule. Results: We included three clinical decision rules. The sensitivity and specificity of all clinical decision rules after external validation were between 94% and 99%, and 11% and 26%, respectively. After external validation 7% to 17% less radiographs would be ordered and 1.4% to 5.7% of all fractures would be missed. Compared to the Amsterdam Pediatric Wrist Rules only one of the three other rules had a higher sensitivity; however both the specificity and the reduction in requested radiographs were lower in the other three rules. Conclusion: The sensitivity of the three non-validated clinical decision rules is high. However the specificity and the reduction in number of requested radiographs are low. In contrast, the validated Amsterdam Pediatric Wrist Rules has an acceptable sensitivity and the greatest reduction in radiographs, at 22%, without missing any clinically relevant fractures

The Amsterdam wrist rules: The multicenter prospective derivation and external validation of a clinical decision rule for the use of radiography in acute wrist trauma

Background: Although only 39 % of patients with wrist trauma have sustained a fracture, the majority of patients is routinely referred for radiography. The purpose of this study was to derive and externally validate a clinical decision rule that selects patients with acute wrist trauma in the Emergency Department (ED) for radiography. Methods: This multicenter prospective study consisted of three components: (1) derivation of a clinical prediction model for detecting wrist fractures in patients following wrist trauma; (2) external validation of this model; and (3) design of a clinical decision rule. The study was conducted in the EDs of five Dutch hospitals: one academic hospital (derivation cohort) and four regional hospitals (external validation cohort). We included all adult patients with acute wrist trauma. The main outcome was fracture of the wrist (distal radius, distal ulna or carpal bones) diagnosed on conventional X-rays. Results: A total of 882 patients were analyzed; 487 in the derivation cohort and 395 in the validation cohort. We derived a clinical prediction model with eight variables: age; sex, swelling of the wrist; swelling of the anatomical snuffbox, visible deformation; distal radius tender to palpation; pain on radial deviation and painful axial compression of the thumb. The Area Under the Curve at external validation of this model was 0.81 (95 % CI: 0.77-0.85). The sensitivity and specificity of the Amsterdam Wrist Rules (AWR) in the external validation cohort were 98 % (95 % CI: 95-99 %) and 21 % (95 % CI: 15 %-28). The negative predictive value was 90 % (95 % CI: 81-99 %). Conclusions: The Amsterdam Wrist Rules is a clinical prediction rule with a high sensitivity and negative predictive value for fractures of the wrist. Although external validation showed low specificity and 100 % sensitivity could not be achieved, the Amsterdam Wrist Rules can provide physicians in the Emergency Department with a useful screening tool to select patients with acute wrist trauma for radiography. The upcoming implementation study will further reveal the impact of the Amsterdam Wrist Rules on the anticipated reduction of X-rays requested, missed fractures, Emergency Department waiting times and health care costs. Trial registration: This study was registered in the Dutch Trial Registry, reference number NTR2544 on October 1st, 2010

A clinical decision rule for the use of plain radiography in children after acute wrist injury: development and external validation of the Amsterdam Pediatric Wrist Rules

Background: In most hospitals, children with acute wrist trauma are routinely referred for radiography. Objective: To develop and validate a clinical decision rule to decide whether radiography in children with wrist trauma is required. Materials and methods: We prospectively developed and validated a clinical decision rule in two study populations. All children who presented in the emergency department of four hospitals with pain following wrist trauma were included and evaluated for 18 clinical variables. The outcome was a wrist fracture diagnosed by plain radiography. Results: Included in the study were 787 children. The prediction model consisted of six variables: age, swelling of the distal radius, visible deformation, distal radius tender to palpation, anatomical snuffbox tender to palpation, and painful or abnormal supination. The model showed an area under the receiver operator characteristics curve of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76-0.83). The sensitivity and specificity were 95.9% and 37.3%, respectively. The use of this model would have resulted in a 22% absolute reduction of radiographic examinations. In a validation study, 7/170 fractures (4.1%, 95% CI: 1.7-8.3%) would have been missed using the decision model. Conclusion: The decision model may be a valuable tool to decide whether radiography in children after wrist trauma is required