Dorsally displaced distal radius fractures: Comparative study of Py's and Kapandji's techniques

Summary Introduction Within the framework of a regional clinical study, the radiographic results of Py's and Kapandji's fixation techniques for dorsally displaced distal radius fractures were compared. Patients and methods A prospective randomised monocenter and multi-operator study (phase III clinical trial) comparing the Py's (isoelastic pinning) and Kapandji's (intrafocal pinning) techniques was conducted. Two comparable groups were established: the Py (P) and Kapandji (K) groups. The frontal radial tilt (FRT), sagittal radial tilt (SRT), radial length and ulnar variance were measured. Analysis of subjective and objective function was based on the range of motion according to six parameters, the DASH and Jakim scoring systems. The quality of anatomical restoration was assessed arthroscopically during pin removal at 6 postoperative weeks. Results Ninety-seven patients were included in the study with a follow-up period of 1 year. The preoperative FRT was 15.17° and SRT was −19.2°. At one-year follow-up, the FRT was 25.5° in the PY group and 22.6° in the K group ( p  = 0.009), the SRT was 10.5° in the PY group and 6.7° in the K group ( p  = 0.04). For fractures with postero-medial fragment and Gerard Marchand's fractures, the DASH score at last follow-up was 22 in the Py group, 42 and 32 respectively in the K group. The Jakim score was 71 in the PY group and 58 in the K group ( p  = 0.03) for fractures with postero-medial fragment. There was no report of tendon rupture in our study. Discussion Besides the good results achieved with both pinning techniques in the treatment of distal radius fractures, this series also underlines the importance to adapt the type of fixation to the fracture pattern and patient. Conclusion Pinning for treating dorsally displaced distal radius fractures appears a suitable option provided that the indications and the surgical technique for each method are respected. However, pinning is not suitable for all types of fractures. Level of evidence Level II. Randomised prospective therapeutic study.