IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i4p3697-d1073672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness and Safety of Different Treatment Modalities for Patients Older Than 60 Years with Distal Radius Fracture: A Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Héctor Gutiérrez-Espinoza

    (Escuela de Fisioterapia, Universidad de las Americas, Quito 170504, Ecuador)

  • Felipe Araya-Quintanilla

    (Escuela de Kinesiología, Facultad de Odontología y Ciencias de la Rehabilitación, Universidad San Sebastián, Santiago 7510157, Chile)

  • Iván Cuyul-Vásquez

    (Faculty of Health, Therapeutic Process Department, Temuco Catholic University, Temuco 4780000, Chile)

  • Rodrigo Gutiérrez-Monclus

    (Traumatology Institute of Santiago, Santiago 7501241, Chile)

  • Sara Reina-Gutiérrez

    (Health and Social Research Center, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 16071 Cuenca, Spain)

  • Iván Cavero-Redondo

    (Health and Social Research Center, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 16071 Cuenca, Spain
    Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Talca 7500912, Chile)

  • Sergio Núñez de Arenas-Arroyo

    (Health and Social Research Center, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 16071 Cuenca, Spain)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness and complications of different treatment modalities for elderly patients with distal radius fracture (DRF). Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Eight databases were searched. The eligibility criteria for selecting studies were RCTs that compared different treatment modalities (surgical or nonoperative) in patients older than 60 years with displaced or unstable intra-articular and/or extra-articular DRFs. Results: Twenty-three RCTs met the eligibility criteria (2020 patients). For indirect comparisons, the main findings of the NMA were in volar locking plate (VLP) versus cast immobilization, with the mean differences for the patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) questionnaire at −4.45 points ( p < 0.05) and grip strength at 6.11% ( p < 0.05). Additionally, VLP showed a lower risk ratio (RR) of minor complications than dorsal plate fixation (RR: 0.02) and bridging external fixation (RR: 0.25). Conversely, VLP and dorsal plate fixation showed higher rates of major complications. Conclusions: Compared with other treatment modalities, VLP showed statistically significant differences for some functional outcomes; however, most differences were not clinically relevant. For complications, although most differences were not statistically significant, VLP was the treatment modality that reported the lowest rate of minor and overall complications but also showed one of the highest rates of major complications in these patients. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022315562.

Suggested Citation

  • Héctor Gutiérrez-Espinoza & Felipe Araya-Quintanilla & Iván Cuyul-Vásquez & Rodrigo Gutiérrez-Monclus & Sara Reina-Gutiérrez & Iván Cavero-Redondo & Sergio Núñez de Arenas-Arroyo, 2023. "Effectiveness and Safety of Different Treatment Modalities for Patients Older Than 60 Years with Distal Radius Fracture: A Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-16, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3697-:d:1073672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3697/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3697/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3697-:d:1073672. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.