Postoperative Grip Strength and Range of Motion Correlated with Better Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Surgical Management of Distal Radius Fractures.

BACKGROUND

The common methods for assessing postoperative outcomes in patients with distal radius fractures (DRFs) are mostly observational. In contrast to these traditional assessment tools, postoperative assessments based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are becoming more popular. The aim of this study was to analyze the postoperative radiological measurements and physical examination measures as predictive measures for patient-reported satisfying outcomes defined by the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score and the Gartland and Werley score.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to inspect whether postoperative radiological and physical examination measurements are associated with better PROs. This correlation would be beneficial to assess surgery's success and predict patient's recovery process, helping with coordination of patient's expectations postsurgery.

STUDY

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

Eligible patients were those who underwent Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) of DRFs and answered the DASH and Gartland and Werley questionnaires with a minimal follow-up period of 6 months and a 2-year median follow-up time; during follow-up, physical examination measures and radiographic measures were taken.

RESULTS

This study has found that older patients have a higher probability to achieve better PROs postsurgery and ROM has been found as a factor correlated with DASH score and Gartland and Werley score. A model combining grip strength, supination, and extension was able to predict the DASH score with 63% of variance: DASH score = 88.864-(0.288 × grip strength) - (0.371 × supination) - (0.270 × extension).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the high prevalence of DRFs and their debilitating effect on patients' functionality, a credible assessment tool must be defined to predict postsurgery patient satisfaction and help in the patient selection process.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.