Brace versus cast following surgical treatment of distal radial fracture: a prospective randomised study comparing quality of recovery

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: Immobilisation following surgical treatment of distal radial fractures (DRF) is traditionally performed with a dorsal cast splint. There is an interest in changing the rigid cast to a removable brace. This can reduce the risk for cast-corrections, complications and improve recovery of function. The aim of the study was to compare quality of recovery (QoR) between brace and traditional cast for immobilisation during the first postoperative week. Methods: 60 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status 1–3, scheduled for surgical treatment of DRF under a supraclavicular block (SCB) in a day-surgery setting were randomised into two groups of immobilisation post-surgery; brace (n=30) versus traditional cast (n=30). Study objectives were: differences in self-assessed QoR using the QoR-15 questionnaire, postoperative oral oxycodone consumption, perioperative time events and unplanned healthcare contacts one week postoperatively. Results: 54 patients, 46 females/eight males were included in the analysis; 27 with brace and 27 with traditional cast. QoR-15 median scores improved significantly from baseline/preoperative to day 7 (brace p=0.001, cast p=0.001) with no differences between the two groups. The only difference found was that patients in the brace group had significantly worse pain score 24-hours post-surgery (p=0.022). No significant differences were seen in total median oxycodone consumption the first three postoperative days. No differences were found in perioperative events or unplanned healthcare contacts. Conclusions: Brace appears to be a feasible option to traditional cast for immobilisation following surgical treatment of DRF. The early QoR was similar in both groups apart from more pain in the brace group the first 24 postoperative hours.
Funding Information
  • IS has received a grant from The Gothenburg Society of Medicine, Gothenburg, Sweden (20/934658)
  • JB has received a grant from FoU-rådet in Gothenburg (VGFOUGSB-711121)
  • BN has fundings through University of Gothenburg (ALF).
  • JK has fundings through University of Gothenburg (ALF).
  • JJ declare department funding only.

This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit: