Dynamic external fixation of unstable fractures of the distal part of the radius. A prospective, randomized comparison with static external fixation

T. G. Sommerkamp, M. Seeman, J. Silliman, A. Jones, S. Patterson, J. Walker, M. Semmler, R. Browne, M. Ezaki

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

100 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A prospective, randomized study was done to compare the results of dynamic external fixation (the Clyburn device) with those of static external fixation (the AO/ASIF device) in the treatment of fifty unstable fractures of the distal part of the radius. Mobilization of the wrist from neutral to 30 degrees of flexion was begun in the dynamic-fixator group at approximately two weeks, and full motion, allowing 30 degrees of extension, was started at approximately four weeks. The external fixation frames in both groups were kept in place for approximately ten weeks. Mobilization of the wrist in the dynamic-fixator group provided little gain in the mean motion of the wrist at the time of the removal of the fixator or at the one, six, or twelve-month evaluation. The static-fixator group had greater flexion of the wrist and radial deviation at the early and late follow-up examinations, while the dynamic-fixator group demonstrated only greater ulnar deviation one month after the fixator had been removed. Motion of the wrist in the dynamic- fixator group resulted in a statistically significant loss of radial length compared with that in the static-fixator group (four millimeters compared with one millimeter, p < 0.001). Complications were more frequent in the dynamic-fixator group. As evaluated with a modification of the scoring system of Gartland and Werley, 92 per cent of the results at one year were excellent or good in the static-fixator group and 76 per cent, in the dynamic-fixator group. The results of this study cannot support the concept of early mobilization with a dynamic external fixator for the treatment of unstable fractures of the distal part of the radius.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1149-1161
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A
Volume76
Issue number8
StatePublished - 1994

Fingerprint

Fracture Fixation
Wrist
External Fixators
Early Ambulation
Prospective Studies
Equipment and Supplies
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Dynamic external fixation of unstable fractures of the distal part of the radius. A prospective, randomized comparison with static external fixation. / Sommerkamp, T. G.; Seeman, M.; Silliman, J.; Jones, A.; Patterson, S.; Walker, J.; Semmler, M.; Browne, R.; Ezaki, M.

In: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A, Vol. 76, No. 8, 1994, p. 1149-1161.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sommerkamp, TG, Seeman, M, Silliman, J, Jones, A, Patterson, S, Walker, J, Semmler, M, Browne, R & Ezaki, M 1994, 'Dynamic external fixation of unstable fractures of the distal part of the radius. A prospective, randomized comparison with static external fixation', Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A, vol. 76, no. 8, pp. 1149-1161.
Sommerkamp, T. G. ; Seeman, M. ; Silliman, J. ; Jones, A. ; Patterson, S. ; Walker, J. ; Semmler, M. ; Browne, R. ; Ezaki, M. / Dynamic external fixation of unstable fractures of the distal part of the radius. A prospective, randomized comparison with static external fixation. In: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A. 1994 ; Vol. 76, No. 8. pp. 1149-1161.
@article{b24c15a158a04e31975e4fb0d4a34c74,
title = "Dynamic external fixation of unstable fractures of the distal part of the radius. A prospective, randomized comparison with static external fixation",
abstract = "A prospective, randomized study was done to compare the results of dynamic external fixation (the Clyburn device) with those of static external fixation (the AO/ASIF device) in the treatment of fifty unstable fractures of the distal part of the radius. Mobilization of the wrist from neutral to 30 degrees of flexion was begun in the dynamic-fixator group at approximately two weeks, and full motion, allowing 30 degrees of extension, was started at approximately four weeks. The external fixation frames in both groups were kept in place for approximately ten weeks. Mobilization of the wrist in the dynamic-fixator group provided little gain in the mean motion of the wrist at the time of the removal of the fixator or at the one, six, or twelve-month evaluation. The static-fixator group had greater flexion of the wrist and radial deviation at the early and late follow-up examinations, while the dynamic-fixator group demonstrated only greater ulnar deviation one month after the fixator had been removed. Motion of the wrist in the dynamic- fixator group resulted in a statistically significant loss of radial length compared with that in the static-fixator group (four millimeters compared with one millimeter, p < 0.001). Complications were more frequent in the dynamic-fixator group. As evaluated with a modification of the scoring system of Gartland and Werley, 92 per cent of the results at one year were excellent or good in the static-fixator group and 76 per cent, in the dynamic-fixator group. The results of this study cannot support the concept of early mobilization with a dynamic external fixator for the treatment of unstable fractures of the distal part of the radius.",
author = "Sommerkamp, {T. G.} and M. Seeman and J. Silliman and A. Jones and S. Patterson and J. Walker and M. Semmler and R. Browne and M. Ezaki",
year = "1994",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "76",
pages = "1149--1161",
journal = "Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume",
issn = "0021-9355",
publisher = "Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Inc.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dynamic external fixation of unstable fractures of the distal part of the radius. A prospective, randomized comparison with static external fixation

AU - Sommerkamp, T. G.

AU - Seeman, M.

AU - Silliman, J.

AU - Jones, A.

AU - Patterson, S.

AU - Walker, J.

AU - Semmler, M.

AU - Browne, R.

AU - Ezaki, M.

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - A prospective, randomized study was done to compare the results of dynamic external fixation (the Clyburn device) with those of static external fixation (the AO/ASIF device) in the treatment of fifty unstable fractures of the distal part of the radius. Mobilization of the wrist from neutral to 30 degrees of flexion was begun in the dynamic-fixator group at approximately two weeks, and full motion, allowing 30 degrees of extension, was started at approximately four weeks. The external fixation frames in both groups were kept in place for approximately ten weeks. Mobilization of the wrist in the dynamic-fixator group provided little gain in the mean motion of the wrist at the time of the removal of the fixator or at the one, six, or twelve-month evaluation. The static-fixator group had greater flexion of the wrist and radial deviation at the early and late follow-up examinations, while the dynamic-fixator group demonstrated only greater ulnar deviation one month after the fixator had been removed. Motion of the wrist in the dynamic- fixator group resulted in a statistically significant loss of radial length compared with that in the static-fixator group (four millimeters compared with one millimeter, p < 0.001). Complications were more frequent in the dynamic-fixator group. As evaluated with a modification of the scoring system of Gartland and Werley, 92 per cent of the results at one year were excellent or good in the static-fixator group and 76 per cent, in the dynamic-fixator group. The results of this study cannot support the concept of early mobilization with a dynamic external fixator for the treatment of unstable fractures of the distal part of the radius.

AB - A prospective, randomized study was done to compare the results of dynamic external fixation (the Clyburn device) with those of static external fixation (the AO/ASIF device) in the treatment of fifty unstable fractures of the distal part of the radius. Mobilization of the wrist from neutral to 30 degrees of flexion was begun in the dynamic-fixator group at approximately two weeks, and full motion, allowing 30 degrees of extension, was started at approximately four weeks. The external fixation frames in both groups were kept in place for approximately ten weeks. Mobilization of the wrist in the dynamic-fixator group provided little gain in the mean motion of the wrist at the time of the removal of the fixator or at the one, six, or twelve-month evaluation. The static-fixator group had greater flexion of the wrist and radial deviation at the early and late follow-up examinations, while the dynamic-fixator group demonstrated only greater ulnar deviation one month after the fixator had been removed. Motion of the wrist in the dynamic- fixator group resulted in a statistically significant loss of radial length compared with that in the static-fixator group (four millimeters compared with one millimeter, p < 0.001). Complications were more frequent in the dynamic-fixator group. As evaluated with a modification of the scoring system of Gartland and Werley, 92 per cent of the results at one year were excellent or good in the static-fixator group and 76 per cent, in the dynamic-fixator group. The results of this study cannot support the concept of early mobilization with a dynamic external fixator for the treatment of unstable fractures of the distal part of the radius.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027930277&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027930277&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8056795

AN - SCOPUS:0027930277

VL - 76

SP - 1149

EP - 1161

JO - Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume

JF - Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume

SN - 0021-9355

IS - 8

ER -