Variation in Treatment of Young Adult Distal Radius Fractures by Pediatric and Adult Orthopaedic Surgeons

Introduction: There remains a lack of consensus on the optimal treatment of isolated distal radius fractures in young adults. The primary aim of this study was to identify differences in treatment of isolated distal radius fractures in patients aged 17 to 21 years treated by adult versus pediatric orthopaedic surgeons. The secondary aim was to identify whether there is a variation in utilization of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus closed reduction and percutaneous pinning when treated surgically by adult versus pediatric orthopaedic surgeons.

Methods: Patients aged 17 to 21 years with isolated distal radius fractures who were treated by adult or pediatric orthopaedic surgeons at 1 of 3 hospitals were identified through retrospective chart review. 72 patients in the pediatric surgeon cohort and 64 patients in the adult surgeon cohort were included. Demographic details were recorded, and radiographs from the initial clinic visit and final follow-up were obtained. Bivariate analysis was used to evaluate for primary and secondary aims.

Results: 40 of 136 patients were treated surgically. Bivariate analysis showed that factors associated with surgical treatment were treatment by an adult orthopaedic surgeon, higher body mass index, radiographic severity, AO classification, intraarticular involvement, distal radial-ulnar joint involvement, and meeting AAOS clinical practice guideline surgical criteria. Factors associated with ORIF compared with closed reduction and percutaneous pinning included treatment by an adult orthopaedic surgeon, older age, higher body mass index, and greater articular step-off.

Discussion: In comparable cohorts of young adult patients with distal radius fractures with similar fracture characteristics, there was notable variation in treatment between adult and pediatric orthopaedic surgeons. Surgical treatment was used more by adult surgeons, and when treated surgically, ORIF was used more by adult surgeons. Variation among surgeons illustrates the persistent lack of consensus on the optimal treatment in this population and highlights the need for additional research on this topic to guide management.

Level of evidence: Level IV.