Operative vs. Conservative Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures
- Conditions
- Distal Radius FractureRadius Distal FractureRadius Fracture Distal
- Interventions
- Procedure: ORIF
- Registration Number
- NCT03716661
- Lead Sponsor
- University of Aarhus
- Brief Summary
Even though broken wrists are of frequent occurrence, the investigators see a lack of extensive and well executed international studies to clarify which is the best treatment for elderly participants at 65+ years. The Danish Health and Medicines Authority recommend that broken wrists are treated with surgery by using plates and screws when certain radiological criteria are met. Recent studies show that, apparently, there are no advantages by operating rather than treating with plaster when comparing the functional results after one year. However, there is a 30 % risk of serious complications occurring after surgery. This study will examine the pros and cons that participants at 65+ years with broken wrists experience after, by lot, having been treated with either surgery (using plates and screws) or without surgery (using plaster for 5 weeks). The purpose of this study is to compare the complications and level of functioning between participants treated with surgery and without surgery.
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- COMPLETED
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 150
- Danish National Guidelines for operative treatment of distal radius fractures
- Patients treated with plaster in Arm1/control group who unexpectedly requires surgery
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Operative ORIF Arm 2 and 3 consist of participants fulfilling the criteria for operative treatment following National Clinical Guidelines. Arm 3: Patients randomized to operative treatment (ORIF)
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Number of participants with treatment-related complications at baseline Baseline Change in number of participants with treatment-related complications from baseline at 1 year 1 Year Range of motion of the wrist at week 5 Week 5 a. Flexion (0-90 degrees) b. Extension (0-75 degrees) c. Pronation (0-90 degrees) d. Supination (0-90 degrees) e. Radial flexion (0-25 degrees) f. Ulnar flexion (0-50 degrees)
Change in number of participants with treatment-related complications from baseline at week 2 Week 2 Change in range of motion of the wrist from month 6 at 1 year 1 Year a. Flexion (0-90 degrees) b. Extension (0-75 degrees) c. Pronation (0-90 degrees) d. Supination (0-90 degrees) e. Radial flexion (0-25 degrees) f. Ulnar flexion (0-50 degrees)
Change in number of participants with treatment-related complications from baseline at week 5 Week 5 Change in number of participants with treatment-related complications from baseline at month 6 Month 6 Change in range of motion of the wrist from week 5 at month 6 Month 6 a. Flexion (0-90 degrees) b. Extension (0-75 degrees) c. Pronation (0-90 degrees) d. Supination (0-90 degrees) e. Radial flexion (0-25 degrees) f. Ulnar flexion (0-50 degrees)
Level of functioning at baseline Baseline Using QuickDASH (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand)
Change in level of functioning from baseline at week 2 Week 2 Using QuickDASH (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand)
Change in level of functioning from baseline at week 5 Week 5 Using QuickDASH (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand)
Change in level of functioning from baseline at month 6 Month 6 Using QuickDASH (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand)
Change in level of functioning from baseline at 1 year 1 Year Using QuickDASH (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand)
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method
Trial Locations
- Locations (1)
Regionshospitalet Randers
🇩🇰Randers, Denmark