What question did this study set out to answer?

The goal is to compare the effectiveness of an orthosis and a plaster cast in treating distal radius fractures in maintaining reduction and improving functional outcomes.

February 13, 2026Open Access

Outcome analysis of conservative treatment of a distal radius fracture with OPTIVOhand orthosis versus plaster cast: a randomized controlled trial

Key Points

The goal is to compare the effectiveness of an orthosis and a plaster cast in treating distal radius fractures in maintaining reduction and improving functional outcomes.
53 patients with isolated distal radius fractures were randomized into two groups: orthosis group and control group (plaster cast).
Follow-up evaluations involved radiological, clinical, and functional assessments, including DASH score and SF-36.
Patient satisfaction was measured through a specific questionnaire.
Both groups showed similar rates of secondary dislocations.
The orthosis group reported significantly better DASH scores and quality of life at several follow-up points.
Patient satisfaction and application time were significantly better in the orthosis group.

Abstract

Abstract Background Distal radius fractures (DRF) are often immobilized using a conventional plaster cast although orthoses offer a time- and resource-saving alternative. This prospective randomized study compared the conservative DRF treatment using an orthosis (OPTIVOhand ® ) with plaster cast immobilization. Besides the maintenance of reduction result (primary endpoint), functional and subjective outcomes (secondary endpoints) were examined. Methods/ Design 53 patients with isolated DRF were randomized to the orthosis group (OG) or the control group (CG). The follow-up examinations included radiological, clinical, and functional evaluations (ROM, grip strength, DASH score, SF-36) as well as patient satisfaction questionnaire. Results 41 of the 53 patients included (OG: n = 21, CG: n = 20) were followed up until the 12 months follow-up. The rate of secondary dislocations was comparable in both groups (OG: n = 3; CG: n = 2; p > 0.05). Additionally, the OG showed significantly ( p < 0.05) better subjective function (DASH score) 6 weeks and 3 months after injury, and a higher quality of life (SF-36 physical component summary) at 2 and 6 week follow-up. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in OG and mean application time was significantly shorter (OG: 02:35 min vs. CG: 07:35 min; p < 0.001). Conclusion This study’s functional and radiological results on conservative DRF treatment did not reveal a significant difference in maintenance of reduction result between modern orthoses and conventional plaster casts, while achieving higher patient satisfaction. Hence, orthoses offer a good alternative to plaster casts, especially for stable fracture types. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register, Identifier: DRKS00017695. Trial registration date 04.11.2019, ( https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00017695 )

AI से पूछें

Bookmark

View Full Paper