Colles' fractures: functional treatment in supination.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Abraham Colles classified and described fractures of the distal epiphyseal radius. He recommended the arm should be immobilized in a cast that extends from the base of the fingers to above the elbow, while holding this joint at ninety degrees of flexion the forearm in pronation and the wrist in slight flexion and ulnar deviation. We identified the brachioradialis muscle as the main culprit in the frequently observed loss of reduction of the fracture. Since the brachioradialis is attached to the distal region of the radius and functions as a flexor of the elbow when the forearm is in pronation, its stimulation easily displaces a reduced fracture, particularly if its geometry suggests axial instability. We concluded that post-reduction stabilization in supination was more desirable than in pronation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective study of one hundred and fifty-six patients suffering from Colles' fractures who were treated with the functional method. Approximately one-half of the fractures were immobilized in pronation and the other half in supination. The median age of the patients was 49 years. After approximately eleven days of immobilization in an above-the-elbow cast that held the forearm in a relaxed attitude of supination and the wrist in slight flexion and ulnar deviation, a new cast or brace was applied. The appliance permitted flexion of the elbow and slightly limited extension. We utilized modified Lindstom criteria to assess radiological results, according to types of fractures and by groups treated in supination and pronation.

RESULTS: In the type I and III (non-displaced) fracture series there appeared to be no significant difference in the functional results between the pronation and supination treated groups. In the type II category, in the supinated fractures, there were 9 excellent, 4 good and no fair or poor results. In the pronated group 9 excellent, 8 good and one fair result. The functional results in type IV fractures treated in supination were excellent in 11 instances, good in 7 and fair in 2. In fractures treated in pronation there were 5 excellent, 10 good and 5 fair results. There were no poor results in either group. 85% of type II fractures and 85% of type IV fractures treated in supination had excellent or good results. In the pronation group, 67% had excellent or good results in type II and 40% in type IV classification. In combining the results for all types of braced Colles' fractures, (I-IV) 93% of the supination group and 87% of the pronation group achieved excellent or good functional results. In analyzing overall results regardless of type of fracture or position of immobilization, 90% of the patients had excellent or good results.

CONCLUSION: We treated Colles' fractures in supination and compared the results with those obtained when treated in pronation. The results indicated a lower incidence of re-displacement in the supination group. We developed a forearm brace that permits flexion of the elbow, but prevented pronation of the forearm, and limited extension of the elbow in approximately the last fifteen degrees. It permits minimally limited flexion of the wrist but prevents wrist dorsiflexion. It makes impossible any radial deviation. The place of surgery in the management of Colles' fractures should be limited to those fractures that when treated by non-surgical means are not likely to render satisfactory functional and cosmetic results. There is not at this time a consensus as to when to use the surgical approach. The complication rate from the surgery have not clearly identify superiority of one over the other. Nonetheless, the surgical treatment has a definite place in the armamentarium of the orthopaedic surgeon. In a number of situations, it is the treatment of choice.