Outcomes in Patients with Bilateral Distal Radius Fractures

Abstract

Abstract Background Fractures of the distal radius that occur bilaterally are comparatively uncommon, with the incidence of these injuries and patient outcomes following different modes of treatment being unknown. Questions/Purposes This article evaluates the demographics, management, and functional outcomes of patients that sustain bilateral distal radius fractures (DRFs). Patients and Methods We retrospectively identified 85 patients that sustained bilateral DRF and were treated at a single institution from 2016 to 2019. Thirty-four patients were treated operatively, 41 patients were treated nonoperatively, and 10 patients were treated operatively in one extremity and nonoperatively in the other. Fractures were classified by a single fellowship-trained orthopaedic hand surgeon. Range of motion (ROM) data and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) scores were collected. Differences between the three groups with regards to demographics, mechanism of injury (MOI), and complications were recorded. Results The pediatric population had significantly higher energy MOIs compared to the adult population. There was no difference between the groups with regard to associated injuries or complications. The pediatric population had significantly more AO type A fractures compared to the adult population, which had a bimodal distribution of AO type A and C fractures. The pediatric population saw significantly more patients undergo nonoperative treatment. Both populations had a higher rate of operative intervention for bilateral DRF than noted in the literature for unilateral. In the adult population there were no significant differences in DASH scores between the operative and nonoperative groups. Conclusion Bilateral DRFs appear to have a similar bimodal age distribution to unilateral DRF. Younger patients undergo nonoperative management more commonly than operative or mixed management. Postoperative ROM and complications appear to be equivalent across all three groups regardless of age. Level of Evidence Level IV, Prognostic study.