Most patients with a nightstick fracture of the
ulna are treated conservatively. Various techniques of immobilisation or
early mobilisation have been studied. We performed a systematic
review of all published randomised controlled trials and observational
studies that have assessed the outcome of these fractures following
above- or below-elbow immobilisation, bracing and early mobilisation.
We searched multiple electronic databases, related bibliographies and
other studies. We included 27 studies comprising 1629 fractures
in the final analysis. The data relating to the time to radiological
union and the rates of delayed union and nonunion could be pooled
and analysed statistically. We found that early mobilisation produced the shortest radiological
time to union (mean 8.0 weeks) and the lowest mean rate of nonunion
(0.6%). Fractures treated with above- or below-elbow immobilisation
and braces had longer mean radiological times to union (9.2 weeks,
9.2 weeks and 8.7 weeks, respectively) and higher mean rates of
nonunion (3.8%, 2.1% and 0.8%, respectively). There was no statistically
significant difference in the rate of non- or delayed union between
those treated by early mobilisation and the three forms of immobilisation
(p = 0.142 to p = 1.000, respectively). All the studies had significant
biases, but until a robust randomised controlled trial is undertaken
the best advice for the treatment of undisplaced or partially displaced
nightstick fractures appears to be early mobilisation, with a removable
forearm support for comfort as required. Cite this article:
We have developed an illustrated questionnaire, the Hand20, comprising 20 short and easy-to-understand questions to assess disorders of the upper limb. We have examined the usefulness of this questionnaire by comparing reliability, validity, responsiveness and the level of missing data with those of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. A series of 431 patients with disorders of the upper limb completed the Hand20 and the Japanese version of the DASH (DASH-JSSH) questionnaire. The norms for Hand20 scores were determined in another cross-sectional study. Most patients had no difficulty in completing the Hand20 questionnaire, whereas the DASH-JSSH had a significantly higher rate of missing data. The standard score for the Hand20 was smaller than the reported norms for the DASH. Our study showed that the Hand20 questionnaire provided validation comparable with that of the DASH-JSSH. Explanatory illustrations and short questions which were easy-to-understand led to better rates of response and fewer missing data, even in elderly individuals with cognitive deterioration.
