Reliability of recommendations to reduce a fracture of the distal radius

1Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background and purpose — It is unclear what degree of malalignment of a fracture of the distal radius benefits from reduction. This study addressed the following questions: (1) What is the interobserver reliability of surgeons concerning the recommendation for a reduction for dorsally displaced distal radius fractures? (2) Do expert-based criteria for reduction improve reliability or not? Methods — We sent out 2 surveys to a group of international hand and fracture surgeons. On the first survey, 80 surgeons viewed radiographs of 95 dorsally displaced (0° to 25°) fractures of the distal radius. The second survey randomized 68 participants to either receive or not receive expert-based criteria for when to reduce a fracture and then viewed 20 radiographs of fractures with dorsal angulation between 5° and 15°. All participants needed to indicate whether they would advise a reduction or not. Results — In the 1st study, the interrater reliability of advising a reduction was fair (kappa 0.31). Multivariable linear regression analyses indicated that each additional degree of dorsal angulation increased the chance of recommending a reduction by 3%. In the 2nd study, reading criteria for reduction did not increase interobserver reliability for recommending a reduction. Interpretation — There is notable variation in recommendations for reduction that is not accounted for by surgeon or patient factors and is not diminished by exposure to expert criteria. Surgeons should be aware of their biases and develop strategies to inform patients and share the decision regarding whether to reduce a fracture of the distal radius.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Boersma, E. Z., Kortlever, J. T. P., Nijhuis-Van Der Sanden, M. W. G., Edwards, M. J. R., Ring, D., & Teunis, T. (2021). Reliability of recommendations to reduce a fracture of the distal radius. Acta Orthopaedica, 92(2), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1846853

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free