Long term outcomes of open reduction internal fixation versus external fixation of distal radius fractures: A meta-analysis

Distal radius fractures are among the most common fractures encountered in the clinical setting. Of these common fractures, it has been said that up to 60% are intraarticular in nature. Intra-articular or unstable and comminuted fractures represent severe and high energy injuries. Despite a large amount of literature, it is surgeon preference which determines the fixation method employed. There are only a few randomised control trials that report 2-year outcomes. There has yet to be a meta-analysis comparing the long-term outcomes of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and external fixation (EF). The aim of this metaanalysis is to identify any difference in the outcomes of either fixation method in the long term. We pooled the data of all the available randomised control trials that followed the patients for a minimum of 2 years and compared outcomes of ORIF against EF of distal radius fractures as per PRISMA guidelines from inception of the databases to December 2016. We then performed our meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software. Flexion/extension arcs were significantly improved in ORIF, and 7 of the 10 analysed outcomes supported ORIF, although most not to a significant degree. The meta-analysis indicated that there is no difference in outcomes with either form of treatment. Even though the flexion extension arc was statistically better in the ORIF group, the difference is not clinically meaningful.