Skip to main content
NCBI home page
JAMA Network logoLink to JAMA Network
. 2022 Apr 27;157(7):563–571. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.0809

Plating vs Closed Reduction for Fractures in the Distal Radius in Older Patients

A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

The Combined Randomised and Observational Study of Surgery for Fractures in the Distal Radius in the Elderly (CROSSFIRE) Study Group, Andrew Lawson 1,2,✉, Justine Naylor 1,2, Rachelle Buchbinder 3,4, Rebecca Ivers 5, Zsolt J Balogh 6,7, Paul Smith 8, Wei Xuan 9, Kirsten Howard 10, Arezoo Vafa 1, Diana Perriman 8, Rajat Mittal 2, Piers Yates 11, Bertram Rieger 11, Geoff Smith 12, Sam Adie 12,13, Ilia Elkinson 14, Woosung Kim 14, Jai Sungaran 15, Kim Latendresse 16, James Wong 17, Sameer Viswanathan 18, Keith Landale 18, Herwig Drobetz 19, Phong Tran 20, Richard Page 21,22, Sally Beattie 22, Jonathan Mulford 23, Ian Incoll 24, Michael Kale 24, Bernard Schick 25, Trent Li 25, Andrew Higgs 26, Andrew Oppy 27, Ian A Harris 1,2,28
PMCID: PMC9047748  PMID: 35476128

Key Points

Question

Does surgical treatment of wrist fractures with volar-locking plates in patients 60 years and older yield superior patient-reported wrist pain and function at 24 months after treatment compared with nonsurgical treatment?

Findings

In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial and parallel observational study of 300 participants (166 who were randomized to surgical or nonsurgical treatment and 134 who declined randomization), no clinically important difference between treatment groups was found in wrist pain and function at 12 and 24 months, despite higher patient-reported treatment success in the surgical treatment group.

Meaning

These findings suggest that in patients 60 years and older, surgical treatment with volar-locking plates does not provide any important functional advantages over nonsurgical treatment at 12 and 24 months.

This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial compares 24-month patient-reported outcomes and complications of treatment with volar-locking plate fixation and closed reduction and cast immobilization among patients 60 years or older with distal radius fractures.

Abstract

Importance

Distal radius fractures are common and are managed with or without surgery. Current evidence indicates surgical treatment is not superior to nonsurgical treatment at 12 months.

Objective

Does surgical treatment for displaced distal radius fractures in patients 60 years or older provide better patient-reported wrist pain and function outcomes than nonsurgical treatment at 24 months?

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this secondary analysis of a combined multicenter randomized clinical trial (RCT) and a parallel observational study, 300 patients were screened from 19 centers in Australia and New Zealand. Of these, 166 participants were randomized to surgical or nonsurgical treatment. Participants who declined randomization (n = 134) were included in the parallel observational group with the same treatment options and follow-up. Participants were followed up at 3, 12, and 24 months by a blinded assessor. The 24-month outcomes are reported herein. Data were collected from December 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020, and analyzed from February 4 to October 21, 2021.

Interventions

Surgical treatment consisting of open reduction and internal fixation using a volar-locking plate (VLP group) and nonsurgical treatment consisting of closed reduction and cast immobilization (CR group).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was patient-reported function using the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, wrist pain, patient-reported treatment success, patient-rated bother with appearance, and posttreatment complications.

Results

Among the 166 randomized and 134 observational participants (300 participants; mean [SD] age, 71.2 [7.5] years; 269 women [89.7%]), 151 (91.0%) randomized and 118 (88.1%) observational participants were followed up at 24 months. In the RCT, no clinically important difference occurred in mean PRWE scores at 24 months (13.6 [95% CI, 9.1-18.1] points for VLP fixation vs 15.8 [95% CI, 11.3-20.2] points for CR; mean difference, 2.1 [95% CI, −4.2 to 8.5]; P = .50). There were no between-group differences in all other outcomes except for patient-reported treatment success, which favored VLP fixation (33 of 74 [44.6%] in the CR group vs 54 of 72 [75.0%] in the VLP fixation group reported very successful treatment; P = .002). Rates of posttreatment complications were generally low and similar between treatment groups, including deep infection (1 of 76 [1.3%] in the CR group vs 0 of 75 in the VLP fixation group) and complex regional pain syndrome (2 of 76 [2.6%] in the CR group vs 1 of 75 [1.3%] in the VLP fixation group). The 24-month trial outcomes were consistent with 12-month outcomes and with outcomes from the observational group.

Conclusions and Relevance

Consistent with previous reports, these findings suggest that VLP fixation may not be superior to CR for displaced distal radius fractures for patient-rated wrist function in persons 60 years or older during a 2-year period. Significantly higher patient-reported treatment success at 2 years in the VLP group may be attributable to other treatment outcomes not captured in this study.

Trial Registration

ANZCTR.org Identifier: ACTRN12616000969460

Introduction

Wrist fractures are the most common type of upper limb fractures.1,2 They are particularly common in older people owing to their increased risk of falls and osteoporosis, and incidence appears to be increasing.3,4 Disability from wrist fractures in older people can significantly impact independence.5 Direct treatment costs are forecast to rise substantially given the aging population and increasing incidence of wrist fractures.6

The 2 most common treatments for wrist fracture are nonsurgical treatment by closed reduction and cast immobilization (CR) and surgical treatment by open reduction and fracture fixation using a volar-locking plate (VLP).7 Surgical treatment, including VLP fixation, has been shown to produce better fracture alignment than CR.8,9,10,11,12,13,14 However, in older patients, VLP fixation has also been shown to offer no clinically important benefit in patient-reported pain and function over CR at 12 months.9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 There has also been shown to be little if any association between radiographic and functional outcomes (A.L., J.N., W.X., R.M., M.K., and I.A.H., unpublished data, 2022).18,19,20,21 The synthesized evidence comparing posttreatment complications for these 2 types of treatment is less clear. Although 2 systematic reviews14,15 found higher rates of overall complications and reoperation with CR, another13 found no difference, and other reviews9,10,12 found significantly lower rates of major complications with CR.

In an effort to clarify both the short- and long-term results for VLP fixation compared with CR, we conducted a randomized clinical trial (RCT) testing the superiority of VLP fixation vs CR for the treatment of displaced distal radius fractures in patients 60 years and older: the CROSSFIRE (Combined Randomised and Observational Study of Surgery for Fractures in the Distal Radius in the Elderly) trial.16 At 1 year, VLP was not superior to CR for patient-reported wrist function, quality of life, wrist pain, bother with appearance, and posttreatment complications; however, patient-reported treatment success significantly favored VLP fixation. The present report described the 24-month patient-reported outcomes and complications of the CROSSFIRE trial.

Methods

CROSSFIRE was a multicenter combined RCT and parallel observational study comparing outcomes of VLP fixation with CR in the treatment of displaced distal radius fractures in patients 60 years and older. CROSSFIRE was approved by the Hunter New England Local Health District human research ethics committee. All study participants provided written informed consent. Methods for the CROSSFIRE study have been described in the published protocol22 and the statistical analysis plan23; the trial protocol is available in Supplement 1. Participants were followed up at 3, 12, and 24 months by a blinded investigator via telephone. The 3- and 12-month outcomes have been reported previously.16 This secondary analysis reports the 24-month outcomes, although some previously reported data are also presented to provide context. This study followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline.

Outcomes

Data for this analysis were collected from December 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was the total score on the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) questionnaire administered at the 24-month (within 1 month) follow-up. The PRWE consists of a pain component (50 points) and a function component (50 points) producing a total score of 100, with higher scores indicating poorer outcomes. We considered 14 points on the PRWE to be the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) necessary to justify the additional costs and risks of surgery compared with nonsurgical treatment.24 The pain and function domain scores of the PRWE underwent a separate sensitivity analysis.

Secondary outcomes were utility-based quality of life at 24 months based on the EuroQol (EQ) 5-dimension 5-level score (MCIDs, 0.074 for EQ utility index scores and 10.8 points for EQ visual analog scale scores25); wrist pain using a numeric rating scale of 0 to 10 points, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating maximal pain (MCID, 1.7 points based on the median of a systematic review of MCIDs for pain scales26); patient-reported treatment success at 3 and 12 months measured on a Likert scale, ranging from very successful to very unsuccessful; patient-rated bother with appearance at 12 months (the bother question has been assessed for reliability in wrist fractures27); and complications, including deep infection, reoperation, neuropathy, tendon irritation that required treatment, tendon rupture, fracture nonunion at 6 months, implant failure, complex regional pain syndrome, and death.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed from February 4 to October 21, 2021. Data were analyzed based on intention to treat at 3 time points. We used SAS statistical software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc), and R statistical computing software, version 3.4.4 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Continuous outcomes were reported as means and SDs. The mean differences (MDs) between treatment groups were tested using 2-sample t tests. Categorical and binary outcomes were reported as frequency and incidence with risk ratios (RRs) calculated between treatment groups. Repeated measures were analyzed using analysis of variance.

If a participant provided data at 24 months, they were included in the analysis. Participants were lost to follow-up if they could not be contacted or declined to participate in follow-up. We did not impute missing data for the analysis of 24-month outcomes, consistent with the analysis of 12-month outcomes. To investigate the influence of missing data, we compared the baseline characteristics of those participants who were included in the final analysis with those who were lost to follow-up. Further details are provided in the statistical analysis plan.23

To investigate effects of potential confounders, we performed a regression analysis on 12- and 24-month PRWE scores. We used generalized linear modeling to analyze the effect of treatment, adjusting for covariates including age, sex, fracture type (AO/Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification type 23A [extra-articular] and 23C [intra-articular]), patient preference, and health-related quality of life (EQ visual analog scale). Race and ethnicity data were not considered relevant to the study and were not collected. Two-sided P < .05 indicated statistical significance.

Results

A total of 300 patients were included (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [7.5] years; 269 women [89.7%] and 31 men [10.3%]). From the original 166 randomized participants, 151 (91.0%; 75 of 81 [92.6%] from the VLP fixation group and 76 of 85 [89.4%] from the CR group) were followed up at 24 months. From 134 observational participants, 118 (88.1%; 31 of 32 [96.9%] from the VLP group and 87 of 102 [85.3%] from the CR group) were followed up at 24 months (269 of 300 [89.7%] combined) (Figure 1). Among the 300 RCT and observational participants, 18 declined participation and 13 could not be contacted at 24 months. Baseline (presurgical) characteristics for patients in the RCT are compared in Table 1. The characteristics of those included in the analysis were similar to characteristics of those who were lost to follow-up, apart from smoking prevalence, which was significantly higher in the group lost to follow-up (4 of 166 [2.4%] vs 2 of 15 [13.3%]; P = .003) (eTable 1 in Supplement 2).

Figure 1. CONSORT Diagram.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

VLP indicates volar-locking plate.

Table 1. Baseline Characteristics for Randomized Clinical Trial Participantsa.

Baseline measure Treatment group
CR (n = 85) VLP fixation (n = 81)
Age, mean (range), y 71.3 (60-90) 70.5 (60-86)
Sex
Women 75 (88.2) 70 (86.4)
Men 10 (11.8) 11 (13.6)
Fracture type
23A 49 (58.3) 55 (67.9)
23C 35 (41.7) 26 (32.1)
Comorbidities
Diabetes 9 (10.6) 10 (12.3)
Smoker 3 (3.5) 1 (1.2)
Glucocorticoid treatment 10 (11.8) 10 (12.3)
Osteoporosis treatment 10 (11.8) 10 (12.3)
Treatment preference
Surgery 5 (5.9) 10 (12.6)
Closed reduction 24 (28.2) 25 (31.6)
No preference 56 (65.9) 44 (55.7)
EQ-5D-5L score, mean (SD)b
Index 0.89 (0.14) 0.85 (0.19)
Visual analog scale 83.6 (14.4) 81.1 (17.4)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CR, closed reduction and cast immobilization; EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level; VLP, volar-locking plate.

a

Unless otherwise indicated, data are expressed as number (%) of participants. Owing to missing data, some numbers may not sum to the total number of participants.

b

Scores range from 1 (full health) to 0 (equivalent to death), with scores of less than 0 defined as health states worse than death.

Patient-Reported Outcomes

For participants in the RCT, mean PRWE scores were 13.6 (95% CI, 9.1-18.1) for the VLP fixation group compared with 15.8 (95% CI, 11.3-20.2) for the CR group (MD, 2.1 [95% CI, −4.2 to 8.5]; P = .50) at 24 months. Repeated-measures analysis indicated a significant change in the between-group MDs over time (P = .03) (Figure 2), with a larger early difference favoring VLP fixation that decreased over time (MD of 9.0 for 3 months, 28.1 [95% CI, 23.0-33.2] vs 37.1 [95% CI, 32.1-42.1]; MD of 1.7 for 12 months, 19.8 [95% CI, 14.7-24.9] vs 21.5 [16.5-26.5]). There was no difference between groups in mean PRWE pain domain scores (MD, 0.03 [95% CI, −3.30 to 3.35]; P = .99) and function domain scores (MD, 2.1 favoring VLP fixation [95% CI, −1.2 to 5.4]; P = .21) (eTable 2 in Supplement 2). No between-group differences were found in pain (MD, 0.1 [95% CI, −0.5 to 0.7]; P = .69) or health-related quality of life measured by the EQ index score (MD, 0.04 [95% CI, −0.03 to 0.11]; P = .24) and the EQ visual analog scale score (MD, 2.1 [95% CI, −4.5 to 8.7]; P = .53) (Table 2).

Figure 2. Distribution of Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) Scores at 3 Follow-up Times.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Error bars indicate 95% CIs. Changes in between-group mean differences over time were significant (P = .03). VLP indicates volar-locking plate.

Table 2. Primary and Secondary Outcomes for the Randomized Clinical Trial.

Outcome Follow-up time, mo
3 12 24
CR group (n = 85) VLP fixation group (n = 79) MD (95% CI) or RR (95% CI)a CR group (n = 85) VLP fixation group (n = 79) MD (95% CI) or RR (95% CI) CR group (n = 74) VLP fixation group (n = 74) MD (95% CI) or RR (95% CI)a
PRWE score, mean (SD)b 37.1 (22.3) 28.1 (23.1) 9 (1.8 to 16.2) 21.5 (24.3) 19.8 (21.1) 1.7 (−5.4 to 8.8) 15.8 (20.8) 13.6 (18.1) 2.1 (−4.2 to 8.5)
P value NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA .50
DASH score, mean (SD) NA NA NA 19.6 (21) 18.7 (20.1) 0.9 (−5.6 to 7.4) NA NA NA
EQ-5D-5L score, mean (SD)
Index 0.70 (0.24) 0.74 (0.24) −0.03 (−0.10 to 0.04) 0.70 (0.23) 0.69 (0.22) 0.01 (−0.06 to 0.08) 0.75 (0.21) 0.75 (0.25) 0.04 (−0.03 to 0.11)
P value NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.24
Visual analog scale 76.0 (17.7) 74.2 (21.2) 1.8 (−4.3 to 7.9) 73.9 (21.5) 72.6 (19.3) 1.4 (−5.0 to 7.7) 76.4 (18.0) 74.3 (22.4) 2.1 (−4.5 to 8.7)
P value NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA .53
Pain on NRS, mean (SD)c 1.5 (2.5) 1.1 (1.9) 0.5 (−0.2 to 1.1) 1.0 (2.1) 1.1 (2.2) −0.1 (−0.8 to 0.6) 0.8 (2.1) 0.6 (1.6) 0.1 (−0.5 to 0.7)
P value NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA .69
Patient-reported treatment success, No./total No. (%)
Very successful 21/80 (26.3) 33/75 (44.0) NA 27/81 (33.3) 42/79 (53.2) NA 33/74 (44.6) 54/72 (75.0) NA
Successful 33.80 (41.3) 28/75 (37.3) NA 30/81 (37.0) 28/79 (35.4) NA 27/74 (36.5) 15/72 (20.8) NA
Neutral 14.80 (17.5) 5 (6.7) NA 9/81 (11.1) 4/79 (5.1) NA 8/74 (10.8) 1 (1.4) NA
Unsuccessful 6/80 (7.5) 5 (6.7) NA 12 (14.8) 5/79 (6.3) NA 4/74 (5.4) 2 (2.8) NA
Very unsuccessful 6/80 (7.5) 4 (5.3) NA 3 (3.7) 0 NA 2/74 (2.7) 0 NA
P value NA NA .10 NA NA .03 NA NA .002
Patient-reported bother with appearance, No./total No. (%)
Not at all NA NA NA 64/81 (79.0) 69/77 (89.6) NA 64/74 (86.5) 69/73 (94.5) NA
Bothered a little NA NA NA 10/81 (12.3) 7/77 (9.1) NA 7/74 (9.5) 3/73 (4.1) NA
Bothered moderately NA NA NA 6/81 (7.4) 1/77 (1.4) NA 3/74 (4.1) 1/73 (1.4) NA
Very bothered NA NA NA 1/81 (1.2) 0 NA 0 0 NA
Extremely bothered NA NA NA 0 0 NA 0 0 NA
P value NA NA NA NA NA .16 NA NA .25
Therapy use, No. (%)
To 3 mo 44 (54) 56 (72) 1.32 (1.04 to 1.69) NA NA NA NA NA NA
At 3 mo 26 (59) 22 (39) 0.65 (0.43 to 0.98) NA NA NA NA NA NA
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CR, closed reduction and cast immobilization; DASH, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire; EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level; MD, mean difference; NA, not applicable; NRS, Numeric Rating Scale; PRWE, Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation; RR, risk ratio; VLP, volar-locking plate.

a

RRs are expressed as VLP fixation vs CR.

b

Scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating poorer outcomes.

c

Scores range from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10, maximal pain.

Patient-reported treatment success favored VLP fixation at 24 months, with 33 of 74 participants (44.6%) in the CR group vs 54 of 72 (75.0%) in the VLP fixation group reporting that their treatment was very successful (P = .002) (Table 2). Overall treatment success (very successful or successful) was significantly higher in the VLP fixation group (RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.05-1.33]; P = .006) (eTable 3 in Supplement 2). There was no significant between-group difference in patient-reported bother with appearance (Table 2).

Complications

At 24 months, a total of 14 of 76 participants (18.4%) had complications in the CR group compared with 7 of 75 (9.3%) in the VLP fixation group (RR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.22-1.18]) (Table 3). Complications led to additional operations in 8 participants, 6 in the CR group and 2 in the VLP fixation group (RR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.07-1.62]). The incidence of fracture nonunion at 6 months was higher in the CR group (4 cases, 3 of which required further surgery, compared with none in the VLP fixation group). Incidence of other complications was very low and favored VLP fixation (deep infection, 1 [1.3%] vs 0; complex regional pain syndrome, 2 [2.6%] vs 1 [1.3%]) or was equivocal (tendon rupture, 1 [1.3%] vs 1 [1.3%]; implant failure, 1 [1.3%] vs 1 [1.3%]; and death, 1 [1.3%] vs 1 [1.3%]). Notably, deep infection (n = 1) and implant failure (n = 1) complications occurred in patients allocated to the CR group who crossed over to VLP fixation (2 of 75 [2.7%]). From 12 to 24 months, new complications occurred: tendon irritation (1 in each treatment group), implant failure (1 in the VLP fixation group), and death (1 in each treatment group).

Table 3. Complications Experienced by Participants in the Randomized Clinical Trial.

Complication Follow-up time, mo
12 24
RCT group, No. (%) RR (95% CI)a RCT group, No. (%) RR (95% CI)a
CR (n = 84) VLP fixation (n = 80) CR (n = 76) VLP fixation (n = 75)
Any complications 12 (14.3) 6 (7.5) 0.53 (0.21-1.33) 14 (18.4) 7 (9.3) 0.51 (0.22-1.18)
Deep infection 1 (1.2)b 0 NA 1 (1.3) 0 NA
Reoperation 6 (7.1)c 2 (2.5)d 0.35 (0.07-1.68) 6 (7.9) 2 (2.7)e 0.34 (0.07-1.62)
Neuropathy 3 (3.6) 3 (3.7) 1.05 (0.22-5.05) 3 (3.9) 2 (2.7)e 0.68 (0.12-3.93)
Tendon irritation requiring treatment 0 1 (1.3) NA 1 (1.3)f 2 (2.7)f 2.03 (0.19-21.88)
Tendon rupture 1 (1.2) 1 (1.3) 1.05 (0.07-16.50) 1 (1.3) 1 (1.3) 1.01 (0.06-15.91)
Fracture nonunion at 6 mo 4 (4.8) 0 NA 4 (5.3) 0 NA
Implant failure 1 (1.2)b 0 NA 1 (1.3) 1 (1.3)f 1.01 (0.06-15.91)
Complex regional pain syndrome 2 (2.4) 1 (1.3) 0.53 (0.05-5.68) 2 (2.6) 1 (1.3) 0.51 (0.05-5.47)
Death 0 0 NA 1 (1.3)f 1 (1.3)f 1.01 (0.06-15.91)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CR, closed reduction and cast immobilization; NA, not applicable; RCT, randomized clinical trial; RR, risk ratio; VLP, volar-locking plate.

a

Expressed as VLP fixation vs CR.

b

These complications occurred after these participants had crossed over to VLP fixation.

c

Performed for carpal tunnel release (n = 1), fracture nonunion requiring plating (n = 1), hardware failure after early crossover to surgery (n = 1), postoperative infection requiring surgical washout after crossing over to surgery (n = 1), and osteotomy at 6 months after initial treatment (n = 2).

d

Performed for removal of hardware after metal allergy (n = 1) and removal of hardware after tendon irritation at 3 months after initial treatment.

e

Known complication at 12 months and lost to follow-up before 24 months.

f

New complication detected between 12 and 24 months.

Observational Cohort

Findings in the observational group at 24 months were similar to findings in the RCT at 24 months. There were no clinically important between-treatment group differences. Mean (SD) PRWE scores were 4.9 (10.3) for VLP fixation compared with 6.8 (13.2) for CR (MD, 1.9 [95% CI, −3.3 to 7.1]). There were no between-group differences in other patient-reported outcomes, including treatment success (eTable 5 in Supplement 2). No between-group differences were found in the rate of complications at 24 months (eTable 5 in Supplement 2). In the regression analysis, the treatment effect was not different when it was adjusted for age, sex, fracture type, patient preference, and baseline health-related quality of life (EQ visual analog scale) at 12 months (MD, 2.2 [95% CI, 4.9-9.3]; P = .55) and at 24 months (MD, 1.9 [95% CI, −4.7 to 8.5]; P = .58) (eTable 4 in Supplement 2).

Discussion

Main Findings

In this RCT, we found no clinically important difference in patient-reported wrist pain and function at 24 months after treatment for wrist fracture between the VLP fixation and CR groups (Table 2). Repeated-measures analysis revealed a significant change in patient-reported function with a large early mean change, decreasing to a negligible mean difference over time (Figure 2). We detected no clinically important between-group differences in quality of life, pain, or bother with appearance at all time points. However, there was a significant difference in patient-reported treatment success at 24 months favoring VLP fixation. These findings were consistent with the 12-month outcomes. The rates of posttreatment complications were generally low and similar between treatment groups, and there were few new complications reported from 12 to 24 months. The study was underpowered to detect significant between-group differences in complication rates. Given that 2 participants with known complications at 12 months were lost to follow-up at 24 months in the VLP group, it is possible that we underreported complications in the VLP group at final follow-up (Table 3).

Findings in the observational group were similar to those in the RCT. Regression analysis indicated that treatment outcome was not modified by age, sex, or other potentially important characteristics at 12 and 24 months after treatment.

We found that participants in the VLP fixation group reported significantly higher treatment success than participants in the CR group at both 12 and 24 months, despite there being no between-group difference in patient-reported wrist pain, function, health-related quality of life, and bother with appearance. Similarly, Hassellund et al17 found that patients undergoing VLP fixation were more satisfied than those undergoing CR at all time points. The between-group difference in reported treatment success may be attributed to an outcome associated with earlier recovery after VLP fixation or some other outcome that was not captured here but may be important to the patient nonetheless.28 Alternatively, given that participants were not blinded to treatment type, the difference may be due to patient expectations and beliefs that surgery is superior.29,30

Comparison With Similar Studies

Recent clinical practice guidelines on the treatment of wrist fractures31,32 were based largely on the evidence of 2 RCTs33,34 and offer uncertain and contradictory recommendations for treatment of wrist fractures in older patients. However, since 2018, several RCTs16,17,19,35,36,37,38 and at least 5 reviews11,12,13,14,15 have been published. Importantly, few studies comparing VLP fixation with CR have reported 24-month outcomes. One systematic review14 comparing the outcomes of VLP fixation with CR in adult patients reported no clinically important between-group difference in patient-reported function at 24 months, based on low-certainty evidence from 3 RCTs19,37,39 (241 participants) and an MD of 8.9 points (95% CI, 5.8-12.1 points; P < .001) on the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, which is marginally lower than the MCID of 10 points.24 Only the RCTs by Martinez-Mendez et al19 reported PRWE scores at 24 months; of 97 participants 60 years and older, there was an MD of 13 points (95% CI, 5-21 points) points on the PRWE favoring the VLP group, marginally less than the MCID of 14 points.24 In comparison, at the same time point, we reported a between-group MD of 2.1 points (95% CI, −4.2 to 8.5 points) on the PRWE. However, Martinez-Mendez et al19 included only type 23C fractures, whereas our study included type 23A and 23C fractures. Although they did not report a crossover rate, Martinez-Mendez et al19 reported a 26% unacceptable loss of reduction in the CR group that might help explain the difference in functional outcomes at 24 months.

Another systematic review13 compared outcomes of VLP fixation with CR in the treatment of distal radius fractures in 561 older participants drawn from 6 studies.19,33,34,35,36,37 However, in that review, 12-month Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire scores from certain studies33,34,35,36 were meta-analyzed with 24-month scores from other studies.19,37 The authors of the systematic review13 concluded that there was no clinically important between-group difference at final follow-up. A recent trial of 304 older participants38 compared the outcomes of CR with various forms of surgical treatment and reported no clinically important between-group difference in patient-reported function at 12 months and little change from 12 to 24 months despite a high rate of malunion in the CR group (59%).

CROSSFIRE was performed to clarify uncertainty in the evidence. Comparison RCTs had lower rates of follow-up,33,34 differential loss to follow-up,33,34,36,37 high rates of crossover between treatment groups,34 or high rates of reoperation.19,35 One review12 and 1 RCT19 based their conclusions on statistical significance rather than on clinical importance. In comparison, our study had high follow-up rates, low crossover rates, and low rates of revision, and our conclusions were based on comparison with prespecified MCIDs.

There is now enough certainty in the evidence comparing VLP fixation with CR in older patients to make strong as opposed to conditional treatment recommendations. Volar-locking plate fixation produces significantly better radiographic alignment than CR and enables earlier return to function. Although patient-reported treatment success is higher with VLP fixation, there is no difference in patient-reported function at 12 and 24 months, and the rate of major complications is not different. Given that there is no clear benefit to VLP fixation from 3 months after treatment, at the 2-year follow-up CR remains the preferred treatment option for most patients 60 years and older. The importance of early functional recovery and reasons for higher patient-reported treatment success with VLP fixation require further investigation.

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths of this study include the high rate of follow-up (89.7% combined, 91.0% for the RCT and 88.1% for the observational group) at 24 months and low rate of crossover (2.7% in the RCT) together with the inclusion of an observational (real-world) arm. There was little difference in baseline characteristics between participants from the RCT and the observational group, and findings from the RCT were similar to findings from the observational group, indicating that study findings were likely generalizable to individuals who did not participate in the RCT.

The main limitation of this study, as with many surgical trials, was that participants and surgeons could not be blinded to treatment allocation, creating the potential for performance and detection bias. Performance bias may explain the discrepancy between patient-reported treatment success and other patient-reported outcomes; however, any bias from unblinding is likely to favor the surgical group.29,30 We minimized this bias by using a blinded investigator to gather outcomes by telephone at all time points. Another limitation was that no screening log was used during recruitment, creating the potential for sampling bias.

Conclusions

The findings of this secondary analysis of an RCT suggest that VLP fixation of displaced type 23A and 23C distal radius fractures for patients 60 years and older may not lead to better wrist pain and functional outcomes at 24 months compared with CR. Significantly higher patient-reported treatment success at 24 months with VLP fixation may be attributable to performance bias or a treatment outcome not captured in this study. These findings are consistent with findings from the parallel observational study and from other RCTs.

Supplement 1.

Trial Protocol

Click here for additional data file. (184KB, pdf)
Supplement 2.

eTable 1. Baseline Characteristics of Retained Participants vs Those Lost to Follow-up

eTable 2. PRWE Domain Scores

eTable 3. Treatment Success as a Binary Variable

eTable 4. Regression Analysis of Primary Outcome, Adjusting for Age, Sex, Fracture Type, Patient Preference, and Baseline Quality of Life (EQ-VAS Score)

eTable 5. Observational Group

Click here for additional data file. (147.6KB, pdf)
Supplement 3.

Data Sharing Statement

Click here for additional data file. (17.1KB, pdf)

References

  • 1.MacDermid JC, McClure JA, Richard L, Faber KJ, Jaglal S. Fracture profiles of a 4-year cohort of 266,324 first incident upper extremity fractures from population health data in Ontario. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):996. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04849-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Karl JW, Olson PR, Rosenwasser MP. The epidemiology of upper extremity fractures in the United States, 2009. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(8):e242-e244. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000312 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nellans KW, Kowalski E, Chung KC. The epidemiology of distal radius fractures. Hand Clin. 2012;28(2):113-125. doi: 10.1016/j.hcl.2012.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bengnér U, Johnell O. Increasing incidence of forearm fractures: a comparison of epidemiologic patterns 25 years apart. Acta Orthop Scand. 1985;56(2):158-160. doi: 10.3109/17453678508994345 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Edwards BJ, Song J, Dunlop DD, Fink HA, Cauley JA. Functional decline after incident wrist fractures—Study of Osteoporotic Fractures: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2010;341:c3324. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c3324 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22(3):465-475. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.061113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ansari U, Adie S, Harris IA, Naylor JM. Practice variation in common fracture presentations: a survey of orthopaedic surgeons. Injury. 2011;42(4):403-407. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Handoll HHG, Madhok R. Surgical interventions for treating distal radial fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD003209. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003209 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Diaz-Garcia RJ, Oda T, Shauver MJ, Chung KC. A systematic review of outcomes and complications of treating unstable distal radius fractures in the elderly. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(5):824-35.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.02.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chen Y, Chen X, Li Z, Yan H, Zhou F, Gao W. Safety and efficacy of operative versus nonsurgical management of distal radius fractures in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hand Surg Am. 2016;41(3):404-413. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mellstrand Navarro C, Brolund A, Ekholm C, et al. Treatment of radius or ulna fractures in the elderly: a systematic review covering effectiveness, safety, economic aspects and current practice. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):e0214362. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ochen Y, Peek J, van der Velde D, et al. Operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(4):e203497. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Stephens AR, Presson AP, McFarland MM, et al. Volar locked plating versus closed reduction and casting for acute, displaced distal radial fractures in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;102(14):1280-1288. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.19.01442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lawson A, Na M, Naylor JM, Lewin AM, Harris IA. Volar locking plate fixation versus closed reduction for distal radial fractures in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBJS Rev. 2021;9(1):e20.00022. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.20.00022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Woolnough T, Axelrod D, Bozzo A, et al. What is the relative effectiveness of the various surgical treatment options for distal radius fractures? a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021;479(2):348-362. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001524 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lawson A, Naylor JM, Buchbinder R, et al. ; Combined Randomised and Observational Study of Surgery for Fractures in the Distal Radius in the Elderly (CROSSFIRE) Study Group . Surgical plating vs closed reduction for fractures in the distal radius in older patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(3):229-237. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.5672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hassellund SS, Williksen JH, Laane MM, et al. Cast immobilization is non-inferior to volar locking plates in relation to QuickDASH after one year in patients aged 65 years and older: a randomized controlled trial of displaced distal radius fractures. Bone Joint J. 2021;103-B(2):247-255. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B2.BJJ-2020-0192.R2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Larouche J, Pike J, Slobogean GP, et al. Determinants of functional outcome in distal radius fractures in high-functioning patients older than 55 years. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(8):445-449. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000566 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Martinez-Mendez D, Lizaur-Utrilla A, de-Juan-Herrero J. Intra-articular distal radius fractures in elderly patients: a randomized prospective study of casting versus volar plating. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2018;43(2):142-147. doi: 10.1177/1753193417727139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chung KC, Cho HE, Kim Y, Kim HM, Shauver MJ; WRIST Group . Assessment of anatomic restoration of distal radius fractures among older adults: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1919433. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19433 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Costa M. Do patients care what their x-rays look like? JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1919570. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19570 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Harris IA, Naylor JM, Lawson A, et al. A combined randomised and observational study of surgery for fractures in the distal radius in the elderly (CROSSFIRE)—a study protocol. BMJ Open. 2017;7(6):e016100. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lawson A, Naylor J, Buchbinder R, et al. A Combined Randomised and Observational Study of Surgery for Fractures in the Distal Radius in the Elderly (CROSSFIRE): a statistical analyses plan. Trials. 2020;21(1):651. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-4228-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sorensen AA, Howard D, Tan WH, Ketchersid J, Calfee RP. Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38(4):641-649. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.12.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(6):1523-1532. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Olsen MF, Bjerre E, Hansen MD, et al. Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0775-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lawson A, Santhakumar P, Naylor JM, Churches T, Frost S, Harris IA. Wrist deformity, bother and function following wrist fracture in the elderly. BMC Res Notes. 2020;13(1):169. doi: 10.1186/s13104-020-05013-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Buchbinder R, Youd JM, Green S, et al. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy following glenohumeral joint distension for adhesive capsulitis: a randomized trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57(6):1027-1037. doi: 10.1002/art.22892 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dunn WR, Kuhn JE, Sanders R, et al. ; MOON Shoulder Group . 2013 Neer Award: predictors of failure of nonoperative treatment of chronic, symptomatic, full-thickness rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(8):1303-1311. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.04.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Myers H, Keefe F, George SZ, et al. The influence of a cognitive behavioural approach on changing patient expectations for conservative care in shoulder pain treatment: a protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):727. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04588-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kvernmo HB, Hove LM, Frønsdal KB, Harboe I, Odinsson A, Krukhaug Y. Treatment of distal radius fractures in adults. August 10, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2020. https://files.magicapp.org/guideline/ac10868f-c18b-462d-978d-cb53a5959fd5/2_6/pdf/published_guideline_551-2_6.pdf
  • 32.British Orthopaedic Association, British Society for Surgery of the Hand . Best practice for management of distal radial fractures (DRFs). 2018. Accessed March 31, 2022. https://www.bssh.ac.uk/_userfiles/pages/files/professionals/Radius/Blue%20Book%20DRF%20Final%20Document.pdf
  • 33.Arora R, Lutz M, Deml C, Krappinger D, Haug L, Gabl M. A prospective randomized trial comparing nonoperative treatment with volar locking plate fixation for displaced and unstable distal radial fractures in patients sixty-five years of age and older. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(23):2146-2153. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.01597 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bartl C, Stengel D, Bruckner T, Gebhard F; ORCHID Study Group . The treatment of displaced intra-articular distal radius fractures in elderly patients. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2014;111(46):779-787. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2014.0779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mulders MAM, Walenkamp MMJ, van Dieren S, Goslings JC, Schep NWL; VIPER Trial Collaborators . Volar plate fixation versus plaster immobilization in acceptably reduced extraarticular distal radial fractures: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(9):787-796. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00693 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Saving J, Severin Wahlgren S, Olsson K, et al. Nonoperative treatment compared with volar locking plate fixation for dorsally displaced distal radial fractures in the elderly: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(11):961-969. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00768 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sirniö K, Leppilahti J, Ohtonen P, Flinkkilä T. Early palmar plate fixation of distal radius fractures may benefit patients aged 50 years or older: a randomized trial comparing 2 different treatment protocols. Acta Orthop. 2019;90(2):123-128. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2018.1561614 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chung KC, Kim HM, Malay S, Shauver MJ; WRIST Group . Comparison of 24-month outcomes after treatment for distal radius fracture: the WRIST Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(6):e2112710. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.12710 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sharma H, Khare GN, Singh S, Ramaswamy AG, Kumaraswamy V, Singh AK. Outcomes and complications of fractures of distal radius (AO type B and C): volar plating versus nonoperative treatment. J Orthop Sci. 2014;19(4):537-544. Published online March 26, 2014. doi: 10.1007/s00776-014-0560-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement 1.

Trial Protocol

Click here for additional data file. (184KB, pdf)
Supplement 2.

eTable 1. Baseline Characteristics of Retained Participants vs Those Lost to Follow-up

eTable 2. PRWE Domain Scores

eTable 3. Treatment Success as a Binary Variable

eTable 4. Regression Analysis of Primary Outcome, Adjusting for Age, Sex, Fracture Type, Patient Preference, and Baseline Quality of Life (EQ-VAS Score)

eTable 5. Observational Group

Click here for additional data file. (147.6KB, pdf)
Supplement 3.

Data Sharing Statement

Click here for additional data file. (17.1KB, pdf)

Articles from JAMA Surgery are provided here courtesy of American Medical Association

RESOURCES