• Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2002

    Review

    Rehabilitation for distal radial fractures in adults.

    • H H Handoll, R Madhok, and T E Howe.
    • c/o University Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France, Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh, UK, EH16 4SU. h.handoll@ed.ac.uk
    • Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2002 Jan 1(2):CD003324.

    BackgroundFracture of the distal radius is a common clinical problem, particularly in older white women with osteoporosis.ObjectivesTo examine the evidence for effectiveness of rehabilitation intervention(s) for adults with conservatively or surgically treated distal radial fractures.Search StrategyWe searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialised register (January 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2001), the Cochrane Rehabilitation and Related Therapies Field database, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2002), EMBASE (1988 to 2001 Week 50), CINAHL (1982 to December Week 2 2001), Current Controlled Trials (December 2001), AMED, PEDro, conference proceedings and reference lists of articles.Selection CriteriaRandomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials evaluating rehabilitation as part of the management of fractures of the distal radius sustained by skeletally mature patients. Rehabilitation interventions such as active and passive mobilisation exercises, and training for activities of daily living, could be used on their own or in combination, and be applied in various ways by various clinicians.Data Collection And AnalysisAll trials meeting the selection criteria were independently assessed by all three reviewers for methodological quality. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The trials were grouped into categories relating to the main comparisons, and to when the intervention(s) commenced (for example, during or after plaster cast immobilisation). Quantitative data are presented using relative risks or mean differences together with 95 per cent confidence limits.Main ResultsTwelve trials, involving 601 mainly female and older patients, were included. Initial treatment was conservative, involving plaster cast immobilisation, in all but 20 patients whose fractures were fixed surgically. Though some trials were well conducted, others were methodologically compromised. No trial provided definitive evidence. Only very limited pooling of results from comparable trials was possible. During immobilisation, there was weak evidence of improved hand function in the short term, but not in the longer term, for early occupational therapy (1 trial), and of a lack of differences in outcome between supervised and unsupervised exercises (1 trial). Post-immobilisation, there was weak evidence of a lack of clinically significant differences in outcome in patients receiving formal rehabilitation therapy (3 trials), passive mobilisation (2 trials) or whirlpool immersion (1 trial) compared with no intervention. There was weak evidence of a short-term benefit of continuous passive motion (post external fixation) (1 trial), intermittent pneumatic compression (1 trial) and ultrasound (1 trial). There was weak evidence of better short-term hand function in patients given physiotherapy than in those given instructions for home exercises by a surgeon (1 trial).Reviewer's ConclusionsThe available evidence from randomised trials is insufficient to establish the relative effectiveness of the various interventions used in the rehabilitation of adults with fractures of the distal radius.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…