A Comparative Study of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (Orif) Vs. External Fixation in Distal Radius Fractures

Abstract

Background: Distal radius fractures are among the most common injuries treated in orthopedic practice. The choice between Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) and External Fixation often depends on the fracture type, patient factors, and surgeon preference. This study aims to compare the efficacy, functional outcomes, and complication rates of ORIF versus External Fixation in the treatment of distal radius fractures. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single tertiary care center, involving 100 patients with closed distal radius fractures. Patients were divided into two groups based on the treatment received: ORIF (n=50) and External Fixation (n=50). Outcomes measured included functional recovery (assessed by the DASH score), grip strength, wrist mobility, and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using t-tests and chi-square tests where appropriate. Results: The ORIF group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in terms of DASH scores (32.9 vs. 27.2, P=0.02) and wrist extension (61.5 degrees vs. 25.1 degrees, P=0.03). Although grip strength and wrist flexion were improved in the ORIF group, these differences were not statistically significant (P=0.12 and P=0.05, respectively). Complication rates were comparable between the two groups, with no significant differences in the rates of infection, nonunion, malunion, or nerve injury. Conclusion: ORIF provides superior functional outcomes compared to External Fixation in the treatment of distal radius fractures, without an increase in complication rates. These findings suggest that ORIF should be considered the preferred method for patients eligible for surgical intervention, taking into account individual patient conditions and surgical expertise.