Functional outcome of long-arm cast versus double sugartong splint in acute paediatric distal forearm fractures: A randomised controlled trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3126/jkmc.v11i4.53547Keywords:
Forearm injuries, Paediatrics, Plaster Casts, SplintsAbstract
Background: The treatment of choice for paediatric distal forearm fractures has been a long-arm cast (LAC) following closed reduction. An alternative treatment is to use a double sugar-tong splint (DSTS), found equally effective to provide three-point fixation and comparable outcomes to cast.
Objectives: To compare the functional outcome between LAC and DSTS for the treatment of paediatric distal forearm fractures.
Methods: A randomised controlled trial was done among 36 patients of 5-15 years with acute distal forearm fractures without neurovascular deficit treated with LAC and DSTS recruited by convenience sampling at a tertiary care centre after ethical approval. Acceptability of reduction, loss of reduction, union rates, cast comfort, range of motion and complications were studied at follow-up upto 12 weeks and analysed using SPSS v.11.5.
Results: Among a total of 36 patients, 18 cases were treated by the LAC method and others by the DSTS method. Both LAC and DSTS were comparable in the maintenance of reduction, the remanipulation rate was 8.3% (n = 3), not significant (p-value = 0.967). All had a union at six weeks follow-up. No statistical difference in mean VAS score (p-value = 0.524), mean loss of flexion (p-value = 0.397), and mean loss of pronation/supination (p-value = 0.814). No statistically significant difference in activities of daily living was noted. No complications were encountered.
Conclusion: DSTS is safe and as effective as LAC in the treatment of distal forearm fractures in children, identical in terms of functional outcome, maintenance of reduction, complications, and time to union.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Journal of Kathmandu Medical College
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright © Journal of Kathmandu Medical College
The ideas and opinions expressed by authors or articles summarized, quoted, or published in full text in this journal represent only the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of Journal of Kathmandu Medical College or the institute with which the author(s) is/are affiliated, unless so specified.
Authors convey all copyright ownership, including any and all rights incidental thereto, exclusively to JKMC, in the event that such work is published by JKMC. JKMC shall own the work, including 1) copyright; 2) the right to grant permission to republish the article in whole or in part, with or without fee; 3) the right to produce preprints or reprints and translate into languages other than English for sale or free distribution; and 4) the right to republish the work in a collection of articles in any other mechanical or electronic format.