Aims. We aimed to compare reoperations following distal radial fractures (DRFs) managed with early fixation versus delayed fixation following initial closed reduction (CR). Methods. We used administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, to identify DRF patients aged 18 years or older from 2003 to 2016. We used procedural and fee codes within 30 days to determine which patients underwent early fixation (≤ seven days) or delayed fixation following CR. We grouped patients in the delayed group by their time to definitive fixation (eight to 14 days, 15 to 21 days, and 22 to 30 days). We used intervention and diagnostic codes to identify reoperations within two years. We used multivariable regression to compare the association between early versus delayed fixation and reoperation for all patients and stratified by age (18 to 60 years and > 60 years). Results. We identified 14,960 DRF patients, 8,339 (55.7%) of whom underwent early surgical fixation (mean 2.9 days (SD 1.8)). In contrast, 4,042 patients (27.0%) underwent delayed fixation between eight and 14 days (mean 10.2 days (SD 2.2)), 1,892 (12.7%) between 14 and 21 days (mean 17.5 days (SD 1.9)) and 687 (4.6%) > 21 days (mean 24.8 days (SD 2.4)) post-fracture. Patients who underwent delayed fixation > 21 days post-fracture had a higher odds of reoperation (odds ratio (OR) 1.33 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.79) vs early fixation). This worsened for patients aged > 60 years (OR 1.69 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.79)). We found no difference in the odds of reoperation for patients who underwent delayed fixation within eight to 14 or 15 to 21 days post-fracture (vs early fixation). Conclusion. These data suggest that DRF patients with fractures with unacceptable reduction following CR should be managed within three weeks to avoid detrimental outcomes. Prospective studies are required to confirm these findings. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1257–1262

Aims

To analyze the short-term outcome of two types of total wrist arthroplasty (TWA) in terms of wrist function, migration, and periprosthetic bone behaviour.

Aims. The aim of this study was to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference, from the payer perspective, in the cost of treatment of a distal radial fracture in an elderly patient, aged > 65 years, between open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and closed reduction (CR). Materials and Methods. Data relating to the treatment of these injuries in the elderly between January 2007 and December 2015 were extracted using the Humana and Medicare Advantage Databases. The primary outcome of interest was the cost associated with treatment. Secondary analysis included the cost of common complications. Statistical analysis was performed using a non-parametric t-test and chi-squared test. Results. Our search yielded 8924 patients treated with ORIF and 5629 patients treated with CR. The mean cost of an uncomplicated ORIF was more than a CR ($7749 versus $2161). The mean additional cost of a complication in the ORIF group was greater than in the CR group ($1853 versus $1362). Conclusion. These findings show that there are greater payer fees associated with ORIF than CR in patients aged > 65 years with a distal radial fracture. CR may be a higher-value intervention in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:205–11