Is reduction necessary in overriding metaphyseal distal radius fractures in children under 11 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

To determine the necessity of reduction in the treatment of overriding metaphyseal distal radius fractures (DRF) in children under 11 years.

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to retrieve studies published from inception to 2023. Two reviewers independently screened for studies with observational or randomized control design comparing two treatments for overriding metaphyseal DRF in patients under 11 years: simple casting without reduction (SC group) versus closed reduction plus casting or pin fixation (CRC/F group); with varying outcomes reported (CRD471761). The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.

Out of 3,024 screened studies, three met the inclusion criteria, 180 children (mean age 7.1 ± 0.9 years) with overriding metaphyseal DRF: SC-group (n = 79) versus CRC/F-group (n = 101). Both treatment groups achieved 100% fracture consolidation without requiring further manipulation. The SC-group showed significantly fewer complications (mean difference [MD] 0.08; 95% CI [0.01, 0.53]; I2 = 22%; P < 0.009) and trends towards better sagittal alignment (MD 5.11; 95% CI [11.92, 1.71]; I2 = 94%; P < 0.14), less reinterventions (MD 0.31; 95% CI [0.01, 8.31]; P < 0.48), and fewer patients with motion limitation at the end of follow-up (MD 0.23; 95% CI [0.03,  1.98]; P < 0.18), although these findings were not statistically significant.

Despite a limited number of studies comparing SC versus CRC/F in overriding DRF in children under 11 years, this study suggests that anatomical reduction is not necessary. Treating these fractures with SC, even when presenting with an overriding position, leads to reduced complications, shows a trend towards fewer reinterventions, improved sagittal alignment, and less limitation in patient motion.

Level III, Systematic review of Level-III studies.