{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02590147282884713, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0111731843575419, 'mean_word_length': 5.437908496732026, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Closed Reduction of Colles Fractures: Comparison of Manual Manipulation and Finger-Trap Traction A Prospective, Randomized Study

Background: An optimal outcome of closed treatment of a Colles fracture may depend on accurate reduction and adequate immobilization. It has been suggested that the use of finger-trap traction results in a better reduction and a lower rate of redisplacement than manual manipulation does, but to our knowledge these concepts have never been evaluated scientifically. We compared these two methods in a prospective, randomized controlled trial.Methods: Two hundred and twenty-three patients with 225 displaced Colles-type fractures were randomized to treatment with closed reduction with either finger-trap traction (112 patients) or manual manipulation (111 patients). The fractures were assessed radiographically by measurement of the radial angle, dorsal tilt, and radial shortening before reduction, immediately after reduction, and at one and five weeks after reduction.Results: The groups were comparable with regard to age, sex, side of injury, fracture grade, and amount of displacement at presentation. No significant differences were found between the alignment of the fractures in the two treatment groups at any time. With dorsal tilt of <10° and radial shortening of <5 mm considered acceptable, the two techniques both produced an 87% rate of satisfactory reductions. However, the percentages of fractures in an acceptable alignment were only 57% and 50% at one week after finger-trap traction and manual manipulation, respectively, and only 27% and 32% at five weeks. The failure rates did not differ significantly between the two groups.Conclusions: The two methods of fracture reduction did not differ with regard to the eventual position of the fracture or the rate of failure. Although closed reduction was successful for the majority of fractures, most redisplaced substantially during the period of cast immobilization.