Keywords
distal radius fracture - treatment-oriented classification - ligament lesion
Introduction
The incidence of articular distal radius fractures (DRFs) has increased recently,
especially among the economically-active population. The frequency of surgery for
patients with DRF has also increased. Arthroscopy is considered the primary tool available
for these patients, as it utilizes minimally-invasive techniques, reduces the joint
surface of the fracture, and enables a higher precision in diagnosis. Arthroscopic
techniques enable surgeons to perform surgery for DRFs via a direct and anatomical
reduction of the joint surface, with sufficient stability for early mobility of the
joint, preserving the proprioception and the vascularization of the tissues, often
resulting in the patients resuming their regular personal or professional activities.
Arthroscopy of the wrist requires specific characteristics and tools that generally
follow these basic principles: creation of work or vision portals, identification
of the lesion, and a specific treatment procedure; the standard of conduct for the
postoperative care of these patients is very similar to that of procedures in other
joints. Imaging scans of upper-limb joint fractures have been used for the initial
diagnosis for many years. In recent years, plain radiography is often the first test
to be ordered; however, the computed tomography (CT) scan has gained momentum, and
is particularly useful to measure deviations and to check bone consolidation.[1]
[2] Furthermore, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is useful to diagnose occult fractures[3] and associated ligament injuries; however, it is not superior to arthroscopy, so
it is not widely used. Articular fractures appear differently, depending on the pattern
and the associated trauma mechanism. Thus, torsional and indirect traumas present
avulsion fracture patterns, and traumas in which the upper limb is used for protection
(to support the body load, for example) are considered direct fractures by compression.[4] Arthroscopically-assisted techniques have broadened the technique spectrum, particularly
when reducing intra-articular fractures and in the diagnosis of ligamentar lesions.
Therefore, understanding the enhanced biomechanics of the different fracture types
associated with ligament lesions should help facilitate an accurate treatment protocol.[5] Conservative treatment is an acceptable option for ligament injuries, fractures
without deviation, and stable fractures, as it poses fewer risks and enables earlier
mobilization by keeping the radiocarpal joint congruent. Another important factor
is the time elapsed between the injury and the start of treatment. As with all injuries,
prompt treatment generally results in a better prognosis.[6] The present study sought to provide a management-oriented concept for the diagnosis
and treatment of ligament lesions associated with the stabilization of intra-articular
DRFs based on a arthroscopy-assisted procedure through the presentation of objective
and patient-reported outcomes (range of motion [ROM], Quick Disabilities of the Arm,
Shoulder and Hand [QuickDASH] questionnaire, Visual Analog Scale [VAS], grip strength.
and time until return to work) for classification.
Principles of Biomechanics
The biomechanics of the wrist involves both kinetic (performing the movement) and
cinematic (bearing load) motion. The basic prerequisites for regular motion of the
carpus are ([Fig. 1]):
Fig. 1 Perfect relationship between carpal bones and ligaments.
-
(1) Intact bone stock of the radius and ulna.
-
(2) Intact intrinsic ligaments conjoin the proximal carpal row to a variable geometrical
condyle versus the invariable proximal and distal counterparts.
-
(3) Intact extrinsic ligaments coordinate the proximal row with the radius and ulna
against the distal carpal row, which acts as a monolith.[7]
-
(4) The role of proprioception and neuromuscular control in carpal stability.
The rather strong palmar ligaments support the proximal row like a cummerbund and
act against forces of the dorsal side like a tension band ([Fig. 2]).[8]
Fig. 2 The dorsal v-ligaments are on the dorsal aspect of the wrist, and the two proximal and distal v-ligaments are situated on the palmar aspect of the wrist, and they keep the carpus in position.
The basic factors that cause DRF include the acting forces, the position of the wrist,
and the resistance of the ligaments. Specific fracture types arise from the interaction
among these parameters. These ligaments appear to reinforce the bone at their origin.
Fracture patterns in two-part fractures generally occur in the area between the ligamentous
zones. Intra-articular fractures show six different patterns, and at least one corner
remains intact with the shaft. From a biomechanical standpoint, these bone-ligament
fragments form a unit and tend to dislocate in different directions depending on their
ligamentous attachment sites.[9]
[10]
[11] ([Fig. 3]). Recent laboratory research has revealed that carpal ligaments exhibited different
kinetic behaviors depending on the direction and point of application of the forces
to the wrist. The helical antipronation ligaments were usually active when the wrist
was axially loaded; whereas the helical antisupination ligaments constrained the supination
torques to the distal row. This novel way of interpreting the function of the carpal
ligaments might assist in developing improved strategies for the treatment of carpal
instabilities ([Fig. 4]).[12]
Fig. 3 In partial intra-articular fractures, six different patterns can be observed. At
least one corner remains intact and in continuity with the shaft (A). The origins of the extrinsic ligaments are shown, which seem to reinforce the bone
(B).[6]
Fig. 4 Three groups of ligaments play a specific role in the primary stabilization of the
axially-loaded carpus. (A) The helical antipronation ligaments become simultaneously taut (yellow arrows) when
the distal row is torqued in pronation (curved white arrow). (B) The medial helical antisupination ligaments (HASLs) resist (yellow arrows) the tendency
of the ulnar-side bones to translocate palmarly (curved white arrow). (C) The lateral
HASLs become particularly active (yellow straight arrow) when the distal row is forced
into supination (curved white arrow).[12]
In the past decade, a fourth factor in carpal stability has been proposed, which involves
the neuromuscular and proprioceptive control of the joints ([Fig. 5]). The proprioception of the wrist originates from afferent signals, and is elicited
by sensory end organs (mechanoreceptors) in the ligaments and joint capsules. It elicits
spinal reflexes for immediate joint stability, and a higher order of neuromuscular
influx to the cerebellum and sensorimotor cortices for planning and executing joint
control.[11]
[12]
Fig. 5 Schematic design to understand the proprioception of the wrist - neuromuscular control.
APL, abductor pollicis longus; ECRL, extensor carpi radialis longus.
Clinical Relevance
However, many of these injuries have a mixed or complex trauma mechanism, as well
as other ligament injuries not observed on the X-ray exam. The clinical relevance
of the present article lies in the identification of occult lesions (perilunate injuries,
not displaced, PLINDs)[13] associated with distal radius fractures, in which the fixation of the bone-ligament
fragments is not sufficient to maintain the stabilization of the wrist joint, and
in the proposal of a new classification and appropriate and specific treatment for
these injuries.
Methods
In total, 150 patients with articular DRFs were selected as subjects in the present
study, which was conducted at Centro Hospitalar Municipal de Santo André (CHMSA),
in the city of Santo André, Brazil. The patients were diagnosed, treated, and subjected
to clinical follow-up ([Figs. 6] and [7]). The surgical procedures used included[1] temporary fixation of the joint fragments with Kirschner wires, or procedures associated
with a volar or dorsal plate under fluoroscopic control;[2] arthroscopic fine adjustment of the reduction (we mainly use radiocarpal portals
3–4 and 6-R);[3] rigid fixation of the joint fragments with screws, under arthroscopic guidance;[4] and exploration of the radiocarpal, scapholunate, lunotriquetral ligament complex,
and of the triangular fibrocartilage complex (radio carpal portals 3–4, 6-R, and central
volar).[14] Following the arthroscopic identification of the lesions, we started with the stabilization
of the radius fracture:
Fig. 6 Complete arthroscopy classification of distal radius fractures (Aita et al.).
Fig. 7 Algorithm for the steps of the treatment for distal radius fractures (Aita et al.).
In avulsion-fractures (bone ligament fragments), cannulated headless compression screws
(HCSs) and Kirschner wires, or specific fragment-type hook plates, were used ([Fig. 8]). Compression-type fractures ([Figs. 9],[10],[11]) cannulated HCSs, Kirschner wires, blocked intramedullary nail (Micronail, Wright
Medical Memphis, TN, US), or a graft (autologous or synthetic) were used to fill the
bone gap that appeared following fracture reduction.
Fig. 8 Pre- and postoperative radiographic aspects: fracture-dislocation radiocarpal-avulsion
of the radial styloid process by the radioscaphocapitate (RSC) ligament – surgical
treatment with headless compression screw (HCS, Synthes, Solothurn, Switzerland) and
reconstruction of the RSC ligament |1A with InternalBrace and mini pushlock anchor (Arthrex, Inc., Naples, FL, US), assisted by arthroscopy.
Fig. 9 Pre- and postoperative radiographic aspects: articular compression fracture of the
distal end of the radius and avulsion styloid process of the ulna by the triangular
fibrocartilage (TFC) ligament – surgical treatment with intramedullary nail Micronail
(Wright Medical Technology, Orlando, FL, US) and Micro Acutrak (Acumed, Hillsboro,
OR, US) compression screw.
Fig. 10 Pre- and intraoperative aspects: Essex-Lopresti lesion associated with articular
DRF – surgical treatment assisted by arthroscopy.
Fig. 11 Pre- and intra operative aspects: (A,B) fracture of the distal radius articular complex associated with scaphoid fracture
and scapholunate ligament lesion – surgical treatment assisted by arthroscopy; (C,D) a minimally-invasive volar plate/HCS fixation (E,F). Post-operative radiographic and clinical aspects (G,H).
The ideal approach and type of implant: regarding the large number of implants available
on the market, it is important to consider which type would be the most suitable to
stabilize a specific fracture type, with regard to economic considerations, and not
every fracture type necessarily requires the most expensive treatment.[5]
The first step was to determine the correct approach and use it to assess the subsequent
measures necessary to prevent secondary dislocation of the carpus (to check ligament
lesions associated the bone-ligament fragments). This seems to be more important than
a perfect reduction. Specific fragments of the plates did not compromise the flexor
tendons; however, they offered only limited possibilities to grasp and stabilize the
very distal fracture elements. For the treatment of single fragments, cannulated self-tapping
screws are becoming increasingly popular, and the minimally-invasive arthroscopy-assisted
methods, in our opinion, were state-of-art, with the plate or nail or screw as the
best solution.
Fig. 12 Intraoperative aspects: InternalBrace in brachioradialis tendon graft.
Fig. 13 Intraoperative and second-look images – knee arthroscopy: ligamentization.[25]
Fig. 14 (A,B) Direct repair with anchor through the scapholunate ligament (SLL), with the sutures
tied and uncut. (C,D) The arthroscope is in the 6R portal. Complete repair of the SLL tear is shown in
a left wrist.[18]
Fig. 15 Schematic procedure for SLL indirect repair (InternalBrace): All arthroscopy and intraoperative fluoroscopy procedures showed bone tunnels
and the DRF treated with dorsal hook plate for fixation of the ulnar dorsal lip and
two HCSs for radial/ulnar styloid fractures.
Fig.16 Foveal reinsertion of the triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) with anchor.[20]
Fig. 17 Schematic SLL indirect repair (InternalBrace) associated with wrist dorsal capsulodesis: scapholunate axis method[19] and procedure by Mathoulin et al.[21]
Fig. 18 Wrist palmar capsulodesis – scapholunate lesion (volar portion)[22] L, lunate; LRL, long radiolunate; S, scaphoid.
Postoperative Period
The rehabilitation protocol included the use of static orthosis in the first two weeks,
with exercises of proprioception and the “dart throw movie” for the wrist, elbow flexion,
and fingers since the first day after surgery.[27] Active kinesiotherapy exercises and dynamic orthoses, assisted by physiotherapy
or occupational therapy professionals, were used from the third week onwards. The
retrn to work or sports activities was faster than with the conventional surgical
approach. This assessment must be individualized, associated with trauma, applied
as a surgical technique, and dependent on the profession or sports-related function
of each patient. The study participants were encouraged to perform activities that
avoided overload or changes in function.
Results
The idea of improving the diagnosis with the inclusion of arthroscopy in the treatment
of these injuries also establishes a greater precision in the choice of the treatment
method, and that is how we obtained the results herein described.
The objective and patient-reported outcomes are shown in [Table 1]. The mean ROM was of 94.80% on the non-affected side. The mean score on the QuickDASH
was of 3.6 (range: 1 to 12). The mean score on the VAS was of 1.66 (range: (1 to 3).
There were complications in 2 (13.33%) of the patients, including extensor tendon
synovitis in 1 patient, and a limitation in ROM (stiffness) in the other patient;
both were treated with wrist arthroscopy release. The mean time until the return to
work was of 6.4 weeks. The present study describes the intraoperative arthroscopic
findings, a new classification ([Fig. 6]), the treatment algorithm used ([Fig. 7], [Tables 2],[3]), and the clinical and functional results of the patients ([Table 1]).
Table 1
Age
|
Gender
|
Trauma/injury
|
VAS
|
QuickDASH
|
Grip strength
(% opposite side)
|
ROM
(% opposite side)
|
Return to work (weeks)
|
Complications
|
17
|
F
|
Sports (capoeira)
|
1
|
1
|
97
|
100
|
6
|
————
|
56
|
F
|
Car accident
|
1
|
5
|
95
|
100
|
4
|
————
|
24
|
M
|
Car iaccident
|
1
|
1
|
98
|
100
|
4
|
————
|
35
|
F
|
Fall from skate
|
1
|
1
|
97
|
100
|
6
|
————
|
43
|
M
|
Fall from motorcycle
|
2
|
5
|
89
|
88
|
8
|
————
|
51
|
F
|
Fall from ladder
|
2
|
5
|
91
|
93
|
8
|
————
|
42
|
M
|
Fall from 3 meters
|
3
|
5
|
88
|
86
|
8
|
————
|
43
|
M
|
Fall during soccer
|
3
|
12
|
97
|
100
|
2
|
Synovitis extensor tendons (EDC)
|
28
|
M
|
Fall from motorcycle
|
2
|
5
|
89
|
86
|
8
|
————
|
25
|
M
|
Fall from motorcycle
|
1
|
1
|
99
|
100
|
6
|
Stiffness (new arthroscopy release)
|
31
|
M
|
Fall from 2.5 meters
|
1
|
1
|
100
|
100
|
6
|
————
|
28
|
M
|
Fall from motorcycle
|
2
|
5
|
97
|
91
|
6
|
————
|
26
|
M
|
Fall from 4 meters
|
2
|
5
|
93
|
90
|
10
|
————
|
50
|
F
|
Skiing accident
|
1
|
1
|
95
|
99
|
6
|
————
|
56
|
F
|
Fall from ladder
|
2
|
1
|
88
|
89
|
8
|
————
|
Table 2
Fracture type
|
Bone ligament fragment
|
Associated lesion
|
Surgical strategy
|
Compression
|
Scaphoid fossa
|
SL
|
Nail/HCS + graft + SLAM + capsulodesis (see [video 1])
|
Compression
|
Central
|
SL/LT
|
Nail or HCS + graft + SLAM + capsulodesis (SL/LT)
|
Compression
|
Lunate fossa
|
SL/LT
|
Nail or HCS + graft + SLAM + capsulodesis (SL/LT)
|
Avulsion
|
Radial styloid
|
RSC/RL
|
HCS or lateral plate + RSC repair or reconstruction
|
Avulsion
|
Ulnar styloid
|
TFCC
|
HCS and/or TFCC repair/reconstruction
|
Avulsion
|
Radial dorsal lip
|
RT/capsule
|
Hook plates/anchors + dorsal capsulodesis + InternalBrace
|
Avulsion
|
Radial palmar lip
|
RL/capsule
|
Hook plates/anchors + capsulodesis + InternalBrace
|
Avulsion
|
Ulnar dorsal lip
|
SL/capsule
|
Hook plates/anchors + SLAM + capsulodesis
|
Avulsion
|
Ulnar volar lip
|
UC/capsule
|
Hook plates/anchors + capsulodesis + InternalBrace
|
Combined
|
Radial and ulnar styloid
|
SL/LT/TFCC
|
HCS + SLAM + capsulodesis (SL/LT) + TFCC repair or reconstruction
|
Combined
|
Radial styloid and ulnar dorsal lip
|
SL/TFCC/capsule
|
HCS or lateral plate + TFCC repair or reconstruction
|
Combined
|
Articular complex/radial head
|
TFCC/DIOM
|
Radial head plate/volar plate/DIOM reconstruction (see [video 3])
|
Table 3
Age
|
Gender
|
Trauma injury
|
Fracture type
|
Occupation
|
Bone ligament fragment
|
Associated lesion
|
Surgical strategy
|
17
|
F
|
Sports (capoeira)
|
Compression
|
Student
|
Radioulnar lip
|
SL/TFCC
|
Volar plate + SLAM + capsulodesis
|
56
|
F
|
Car accident
|
Avulsion
|
Hair stylist
|
Radial styloid
|
SL/TFCC
|
HCS + SL thermal shinrkage + TFCC repair
|
24
|
M
|
Car iaccident
|
Combined
|
Engineer
|
Radial/ulnar styloid + dorsal ulnar radio lip
|
SL/TFCC/dorsal capsule
|
HCS + dorsal ulnar hook plate + SLAM + capsulodesis + TFCC repair
|
35
|
F
|
Fall from skate
|
Compression
|
Salesperson
|
Lunate fossa + ulnar styloid
|
LT/TFCC
|
Micronail + HCS + LT thermal shrinkage + TFCC repair
|
43
|
M
|
Fall from motorcycle
|
Avulsion
|
Engineer
|
Radial styloid+ radiocarpal dislocation + ulnar translation
|
RSC/RL/CTS
|
HCS+ RSC/RL reconstruction + CTS decompression
|
51
|
F
|
Fall from ladder
|
Compression
|
Lawyer
|
Articular complex
|
TFCC + radial head + unstable DRUJ
|
Kirschner wire + volar plate + radial head prosthesis + IOM reconstruction
|
42
|
M
|
Fall from 3 meters
|
Compression
|
Bricklayer
|
Lunate fossa
|
TFCC/radial head/IOM
|
HCS in DRF + radial head + IOM reconstruction
|
43
|
M
|
Fall during soccer
|
Avulsion
|
Salesperson
|
Radial styloid
|
SL
|
HCS + SLAM + capsulodesis
|
28
|
M
|
Fall from motorcycle
|
Avulsion
|
Salesperson
|
Radial styloid
|
RSC/RL/TFCC/CTS
|
HCS +TFCC reinsertion
|
25
|
M
|
Fall from motorcycle
|
Combined
|
Designer
|
Radial and ulnar styloid + ulnar lip
|
SL/capsule/TFCC
|
Volar plate + volar casulodesis + SL shrinkage + TFCC repair + dynamic external fixation
|
31
|
M
|
Fall from 2.5 meters
|
Compression
|
triathlete
|
Radial fossa
|
SL
|
Micronail + SL thermal shrinkage
|
28
|
M
|
Fall from motorcycle
|
Combined
|
Engineer
|
Radial/ulnar styloid + ulnar dorsal lip
|
RL/TFCC
|
HCS + ulnar hook plate + radial head plate/RL shrinkage + TFCC repair
|
26
|
M
|
Fall from 4 meters
|
Compression
|
Bricklayer
|
Lunate fossa + ulnar styloid
|
UC/capsule
|
Volar hook plate/TFCC reinsertion
|
50
|
F
|
Skiing accident
|
Avulsion
|
Dentist
|
Volar lip
|
RL/capsule
|
Volar hook plate/capsulodesis
|
56
|
F
|
Fall from ladder
|
Compression
|
Lawyer
|
Articular complex
|
Scaphoid fracture/SL
|
Volar plate + HCS + SL thermal shrinkage
|
Discussion
Scientific studies[10] claim that the lack of anatomical restoration and on-going osteoarthritis might
be associated with the clinical outcome after DRFs. Contrary to this belief, the reduction
assisted by arthroscopy in DRFs could be conducted simply and with minimal consumption
of resources in the operating room. The proposed technique combines the benefits of
rigid fixation with volar locking plates (for the extra-articular component), arthroscopic
reduction control, and associated ligament injuries (for the articular component).
It is important that the operation is performed using the dry arthroscopic technique.[15] Perilunate injuries, not displaced,[13] were recently described, and we proposed a new arthroscopic classification for articular
DRFs associated with PLINDs.
In the last three years, a new treatment (repair) for ligament injuries, using InternalBrace as an augmentation, has been developed ([Fig. 12]). This treatment enabled a new focus on the restoration of the normal anatomy and
function of the traumatized joint. It supports the early mobilization of the repaired
ligament and enables the natural tissues to be strengthened and recover progressively
with minimal surgical morbidity. Reconstruction only should be indicated if the tissues
did not heal properly after augmentation and ligament repair.[24]
These injuries were also treated with ligament reconstruction with a tendon graft
(non-vascularized tissue) and bone tunnels, and this graft, which was termed ligamentization ([Fig. 13]), enabled the clinical and functional recovery of the joint.[25]
[26] The rehabilitation protocol included the use of static orthosis in the first two
weeks, with proprioception and “dart-throwing motion” exercises since the first day
after surgery.[27] Around the third week, active kinesiotherapy exercises were started, and dynamic
orthoses were also used.
The Advantages of Using Wrist Arthroscopy are:
-
- Preservation of the mechanisms of proprioception on the wrist (dorsal capsule);[28]
-
- accurate diagnosis of associated injuries;
-
- it favors more anatomical ligament repairs and reconstruction;[29] and
-
- it enables direct visualization of the reduction of the articular surface.
The Disadvantages are:
Sufficient stability, joint congruence, and anatomical reduction of the fractures
remain the main goals of the treatment. The best result appeared when early joint
mobility was allowed, and the patients were allowed to return to their personal and
professional activities. Minimally-invasive techniques, guided by arthroscopy, were
the most advantageous way to assist these patients.
The proper treatment of DRFs often involved bone-ligament fragments (avulsion), ligament
injuries in other sites, and, radiocarpal or intercarpal instability (PLIND) in the
patients. Here, the role of arthroscopy was essential for the diagnosis and treatment
of these injuries. The present study suggested techniques for anatomical and biological
ligament reconstruction and repair. We were able to observe in these patients stable
and congruent wrist joints, absence of osteolysis in the bone tunnels, and signs of
posttraumatic osteoarthritis. The clinical results and rate of complications in the
present study showed the most favorable results compared with the other techniques.[10] The mean ROM was of 94.80% on the non-affected side. The mean score on the QuickDASH
was of 3.6 (range: 1 to 12). The mean score on the VAS was of 1.66 (1 to 3). Complications
were observed in 2 (13.33%) patients: extensor tendon synovitis in 1 patient, and
a limitation in ROM (Stiffness) in another patient; both were treated with wrist arthroscopy
release. The mean time until the return to work was of 6.4 weeks.
Author Recommendations
Many authors have used arthroscopy for the treatment of joint fractures; therefore,
the tips and ideas have increased in the existing literature.[6]
[14]
[15] Furthermore, new classifications have appeared, and the procedure becomes increasingly
reproducible. The authors would like to stress the importance of university courses
with a cadaver laboratory, on going publications, and exchanges of information with colleagues from Europe
(Spain, France, Italy), the United States, and Latin America (Brazil, Argentina, Chile,
Mexico, and Colombia). Information regarding new treatments for acute articular fractures
of the upper limb are lacking, and new studies are required in the future. Most of
the available articles were heterogeneous, such as case reports.[18]
[19]
[21]
[23]
[24] All of the articles either found or emphasized the role of arthroscopy as the exam/tool
that leads to the most favorable diagnoses of fractures and associated injuries. In
the treatment of these fractures, reduction guided by arthroscopy was associated with
percutaneous fixation, and had sufficient stability to enable immediate mobility.
This procedure imparted advantages to the conventional methods of open reduction,
primarily by what was involved in the concept of biomechanics and proprioception,
as well as the accuracy of joint reduction and respect for the minimal aggression
to adjacent tissues.
This surgery required substantial arthroscopic education for the most complicated
cases; however, it was easily performed in simple cases. The paradox was that the
cases that benefited the most from arthroscopy were the most complex.[16]
Conclusion
Basic understanding of the essential biomechanic characteristics in DRFs appeared
crucial to maintaining the wrist proprioception and achieve sufficient stabilization
of the bone ligament fragments and the associated ligament lesions, thereby avoiding
secondary dislocation. The present paper provided a management-oriented concept for
the diagnosis and treatment of the ligament lesions associated with the stabilization
of intra-articular DRFs based on an arthroscopy-assisted procedure through a new classification
shown here.
In the treatment of patients with unstable intra-articular DRFs associated with ligament
lesions, the ligaments were either repaired or reconstructed, and the fixation of
specific bone-ligament fragments was performed through wrist arthroscopy, which proved
to be a safe and reliable treatment. Ultimately, the clinical and functional results
predicted whether the patients could return to work.