Comparative analysis of closed reduction with external fixation versus closed reduction with percutaneous pinning for distal radius fractures
Abstract Closed reduction with external fixation (CREF) and percutaneous pinning (CRPP) are commonly used surgical interventions to treat distal radius fractures. However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal management of these types of fractures. Therefore, this study aimed to compare these...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Scientific Reports |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-04001-8 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850231285532852224 |
|---|---|
| author | Roozbeh Nazari Shahnam Mousavi Mohammad Fakoor Arash Hassanpour Dargah Behnam Hamiat Mayan Homa Taheri Seyedeh Maryam Mousavinezhad Nahid Senobari Mehrdad Gooshvar Pouya Ebrahimi |
| author_facet | Roozbeh Nazari Shahnam Mousavi Mohammad Fakoor Arash Hassanpour Dargah Behnam Hamiat Mayan Homa Taheri Seyedeh Maryam Mousavinezhad Nahid Senobari Mehrdad Gooshvar Pouya Ebrahimi |
| author_sort | Roozbeh Nazari |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Closed reduction with external fixation (CREF) and percutaneous pinning (CRPP) are commonly used surgical interventions to treat distal radius fractures. However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal management of these types of fractures. Therefore, this study aimed to compare these treatments’ clinical and radiological outcomes in two subgroups of distal radius fractures. The patients who were ≥ 18 and were referred for the diagnosis of type I and III (Fernandez) distal radius fractures were treated with one of these two methods, which have been evaluated through a retrospective analysis of the medical records. A total of 244 patients were divided into CREF treatment (n = 122) and control treatment (n = 122). These patients’ radiological, clinical, functional, and incidence rates of complications (over-distraction, radial neuropathy, and deep or superficial infection) were compared to analyze each method’s positive and negative aspects. This study showed that patients in the PP group reported significantly less pain than those in the EF group (P-value < 0.05). The PP group scored lower in the specific and general activities categories, significantly reducing Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE). Although the CREF group had greater radius shortening, the difference was not statistically significant. Notably, the CREF group exhibited a significantly higher incidence of complications. Percutaneous pinning proved to be a more effective method for treating distal radius type I and III fractures. Compared to those treated with external fixation, patients experienced fewer post-treatment complications, lower pain levels, and less difficulty in daily activities. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-e3d3c993539e4b3a90cba8d7445eabec |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2045-2322 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-05-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scientific Reports |
| spelling | doaj-art-e3d3c993539e4b3a90cba8d7445eabec2025-08-20T02:03:35ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222025-05-011511710.1038/s41598-025-04001-8Comparative analysis of closed reduction with external fixation versus closed reduction with percutaneous pinning for distal radius fracturesRoozbeh Nazari0Shahnam Mousavi1Mohammad Fakoor2Arash Hassanpour Dargah3Behnam Hamiat Mayan4Homa Taheri5Seyedeh Maryam Mousavinezhad6Nahid Senobari7Mehrdad Gooshvar8Pouya Ebrahimi9Cardiology Department, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical SciencesDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesSchool of Medicine, Alborz University of Medical SciencesDoctor of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesCedars-Sinai Cardiology DepartmentDoctor of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesCardiology Department, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical SciencesDoctor of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesDoctor of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesAbstract Closed reduction with external fixation (CREF) and percutaneous pinning (CRPP) are commonly used surgical interventions to treat distal radius fractures. However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal management of these types of fractures. Therefore, this study aimed to compare these treatments’ clinical and radiological outcomes in two subgroups of distal radius fractures. The patients who were ≥ 18 and were referred for the diagnosis of type I and III (Fernandez) distal radius fractures were treated with one of these two methods, which have been evaluated through a retrospective analysis of the medical records. A total of 244 patients were divided into CREF treatment (n = 122) and control treatment (n = 122). These patients’ radiological, clinical, functional, and incidence rates of complications (over-distraction, radial neuropathy, and deep or superficial infection) were compared to analyze each method’s positive and negative aspects. This study showed that patients in the PP group reported significantly less pain than those in the EF group (P-value < 0.05). The PP group scored lower in the specific and general activities categories, significantly reducing Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE). Although the CREF group had greater radius shortening, the difference was not statistically significant. Notably, the CREF group exhibited a significantly higher incidence of complications. Percutaneous pinning proved to be a more effective method for treating distal radius type I and III fractures. Compared to those treated with external fixation, patients experienced fewer post-treatment complications, lower pain levels, and less difficulty in daily activities.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-04001-8Distal radius fracturesExternal fixatorPercutaneous pinFunctional outcomeComplication |
| spellingShingle | Roozbeh Nazari Shahnam Mousavi Mohammad Fakoor Arash Hassanpour Dargah Behnam Hamiat Mayan Homa Taheri Seyedeh Maryam Mousavinezhad Nahid Senobari Mehrdad Gooshvar Pouya Ebrahimi Comparative analysis of closed reduction with external fixation versus closed reduction with percutaneous pinning for distal radius fractures Scientific Reports Distal radius fractures External fixator Percutaneous pin Functional outcome Complication |
| title | Comparative analysis of closed reduction with external fixation versus closed reduction with percutaneous pinning for distal radius fractures |
| title_full | Comparative analysis of closed reduction with external fixation versus closed reduction with percutaneous pinning for distal radius fractures |
| title_fullStr | Comparative analysis of closed reduction with external fixation versus closed reduction with percutaneous pinning for distal radius fractures |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative analysis of closed reduction with external fixation versus closed reduction with percutaneous pinning for distal radius fractures |
| title_short | Comparative analysis of closed reduction with external fixation versus closed reduction with percutaneous pinning for distal radius fractures |
| title_sort | comparative analysis of closed reduction with external fixation versus closed reduction with percutaneous pinning for distal radius fractures |
| topic | Distal radius fractures External fixator Percutaneous pin Functional outcome Complication |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-04001-8 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT roozbehnazari comparativeanalysisofclosedreductionwithexternalfixationversusclosedreductionwithpercutaneouspinningfordistalradiusfractures AT shahnammousavi comparativeanalysisofclosedreductionwithexternalfixationversusclosedreductionwithpercutaneouspinningfordistalradiusfractures AT mohammadfakoor comparativeanalysisofclosedreductionwithexternalfixationversusclosedreductionwithpercutaneouspinningfordistalradiusfractures AT arashhassanpourdargah comparativeanalysisofclosedreductionwithexternalfixationversusclosedreductionwithpercutaneouspinningfordistalradiusfractures AT behnamhamiatmayan comparativeanalysisofclosedreductionwithexternalfixationversusclosedreductionwithpercutaneouspinningfordistalradiusfractures AT homataheri comparativeanalysisofclosedreductionwithexternalfixationversusclosedreductionwithpercutaneouspinningfordistalradiusfractures AT seyedehmaryammousavinezhad comparativeanalysisofclosedreductionwithexternalfixationversusclosedreductionwithpercutaneouspinningfordistalradiusfractures AT nahidsenobari comparativeanalysisofclosedreductionwithexternalfixationversusclosedreductionwithpercutaneouspinningfordistalradiusfractures AT mehrdadgooshvar comparativeanalysisofclosedreductionwithexternalfixationversusclosedreductionwithpercutaneouspinningfordistalradiusfractures AT pouyaebrahimi comparativeanalysisofclosedreductionwithexternalfixationversusclosedreductionwithpercutaneouspinningfordistalradiusfractures |