Ultrasound-guided manipulation does not prevent malalignment over landmark-based fracture reduction in distal radius fracture (Colles)

Abstract

Introduction: This systematic review aims to determine the relative risk of distal radius (Colles) fracture (DRF) malalignment between ultrasound (USG)-guided and conventional/landmark guided/blind manipulation and reduction (M&R). Methods: We searched 3932 records from major electronic bibliographic databases on USG-guided manipulation of DRF. Studies with randomized, quasi-randomized, and cross-sectional study designs meeting the inclusion criteria were included in this review. USG and landmark-guided DRF manipulations were named cases and controls, respectively. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies. Results: Thirteen and nine studies were analysed for qualitative and quantitative analysis in this review. Nine hundred fifty-one DRF patients (475 cases and 476 controls) from 9 studies with mean ages of 51.52 ± 11.86 (22–92) and 55.82 ± 11.28 (18–98) years for cases and controls were pooled for this review. The pooled relative risk estimate from the studies included in the meta-analysis was 0.90 (0.74–1.09). There was a 10% decrease in the risk of malalignment with USG than the landmark guided M&R of DRF. The I2 statistic estimated a heterogeneity of 83%. Sensitivity analysis revealed a relative risk of 1.00 (0.96–1.05). Conclusion: The USG-guided manipulation does not prevent malalignment over the landmark-based manipulation of DRF. The risk of bias across the included studies and heterogeneity of 83% mandates further unbiased, high-quality studies to verify the findings of this review.

Keywords

• adult radius
• colles' fracture
• distal radius fracture
• emergency service
• manipulation
• reduction
• ultrasonography