- Original Article
- Open Access
Neglected epiphyseal injuries of the distal end of the radius with ulnar impaction: analysis of distal osteotomy of both bones using a dorsal midline approach
© The Author(s) 2016
- Received: 18 October 2015
- Accepted: 13 July 2016
- Published: 28 July 2016
To evaluate results of a technique for treating neglected epiphyseal injuries of the distal radius with ulnar impaction.
Materials and methods
This retrospective study involved six cases (four males; two females), all of whom sustained the primary injury during childhood (range 9–12 years of age). All presented with wrist deformity and ulnar-sided wrist pain. They were managed with osteotomy of the distal radius, osteotomy and shortening of the ulna, harvesting the bone grafts, and distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) reduction performed simultaneously through a dorsal midline approach. Mean follow-up was 30 months (range 24–36).
Deformity correction and pain relief was observed in all patients. Flexion arc increased from an average of 60° to 102.5°, supination from an average of 31.67° to 67.50°, and pronation from an average of 30.83° to 61.67°. The mean preoperative DASH score was 87.5, which improved to 18.72 postoperatively.
Neglected epiphyseal injuries of the distal radius are difficult to manage and many variations are described for handing each of the associated problems. Our technique provides an option for managing this injury with an easy surgical approach, single incision, and cost effectiveness. All the four components of the surgery, which include osteotomy of the distal radius, osteotomy of the ulna, harvesting the bone grafts, and DRUJ reduction were done through a single incision and in a single sitting.
Level of evidence IV.
- Neglected epiphyseal injury of distal-end radius
- Ulnar impaction
Malunion is the commonest deformity in adult distal radius fractures, which complicates ~23 % of non-surgically treated, and 11 % of operatively treated fractures [1–4]. The incidence in children is much lower, as any malunion of the distal end of the radius in children usually remodels itself [5, 6]. However, this may not always occur when there is associated damage to the physeal plate, leading to partial or complete growth arrest . Other factors which affect remodeling are age of the patient at the time of fracture, the distance between the fracture and the epiphyseal plate, and the extent of residual angulation following reduction [5–7]. An anatomically reduced distal radius can also lead to deformity later on due to damage to the physis . Multiple attempts at reduction and late re-manipulation at more than 7 days post injury are known risk factors for physeal arrest [7, 9, 10]. The incidence of physeal closure is 7–10 % according to Lee . Malunions may manifest themselves variedly, ranging from asymptomatic radiographic abnormalities to disabling deformities associated with significant pain and functional impairment [4, 11]. Treatment in the form of corrective osteotomy was first proposed by Meyerding and Overton in 1935 . Since then, many techniques have been described which have their own pros and cons. Most research in this regard has been done in adult patients.
Neglected injuries in skeletally immature patients pose unique challenges, especially those with associated physeal arrest. These injuries do not remodel completely, and the normal ulnar growth later leads to DRUJ dislocation and ulnar impaction. If recognized early, physeal bar excision and fat interposition, along with distal ulnar epiphysiodesis can be done . However, once ulnar abutment or impingement is present and potential for growth is over, a more invasive procedure is usually required. Neglected distal radius malunion with positive ulnar variance and distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) disruption is a challenging situation for the surgeon. We describe our results with a simple technique in which all four components of the surgery, which include osteotomy of the distal radius, osteotomy of the ulna, harvesting the bone grafts,and DRUJ reduction can be done through a single incision and in a single sitting.
Clinical details of patients
Age at time of injury (years)
Pre-op flexion (DF/PF) (degrees)
Post-op flexion (DF/PF) (degrees)
Pre-op rotation (supination/pronation) (degrees)
Post-op rotation (supination/pronation) (degrees)
Final follow-up (months)
Ulnar variance and DASH scores (pre-op and post-op at final follow-up)
Pre-op ulnar variance (mm)
Post-op ulnar variance (mm) (final follow-up)
Pre-op DASH score
Post-op DASH score (final follow-up)
Malunion of the distal radius can result in biomechanical abnormalities in the radioulnar, the radiocarpal and the midcarpal joints [15, 16]. In the normal wrist, ~82 % of the axial load is distributed onto the radius, with the remaining 18 % being borne by the distal ulna through the triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC). With 2.5-mm radial shortening, this relationship changes so that the ulna bears 42 % of the axial load . Continued shortening further increases ulnar load bearing and can result in symptoms of ulnocarpal impingement. Radial shortening has further deleterious effects in that it alters the congruency of the DRUJ and increases tension on the triangular fibrocartilage complex; these changes can result in increased pain and decreased rotation at the DRUJ, with nearly 50 % loss in pronation and ~30 % loss in supination with 10 mm shortening. Besides causing restricted range of motion around the wrist, fractures maluniting with residual dorsal angulation and DRUJ disruption also cause an unsightly deformity .
Most of the epiphyseal injuries of distal radius in children are Salter–Harris type 1 or 2, and they are commonly dorsally angulated [18, 19]. As compared to fractures of the mid shaft, the fractures of the distal forearm possess a greater remodeling potential , attributable to the fact that the distal growth plate of the radius accounts for 75 % of the bone’s length  which permits a substantial potential for remodeling. Age and distance from the growth plate have also been found to be important factors for the remodeling of forearm fractures in children. The potential for remodeling is maximal when the plane of deformity lies in the plane of motion of the adjacent joint . Larsen et al. examined 70 fractures of the distal forearm in children with an angulation up to 28° and found that children under 10 years possess the ability to correct angulation up to 28°, but the potential for correction is decreased with greater angulation and age over 10 years . Therefore, most investigators recommend that correction of angular deformities should be performed in children over 10–12 years of age [6, 21–23]. As all our cases were in age range of 9–12 years at time of injury, all had significant growth potential remaining. Malunion in these cases, together with relative lengthening of ulna lead us to retrospectively diagnose physeal growth arrest in these cases.
Deformity in all our cases was a combination of wrist extension (due to malunion in extension) and radial deviation (due to ulnar overgrowth), although the pattern of deformity may be variable depending on the site and extent of physeal arrest. Variable loss of radial inclination was present in all cases in the coronal plane. The radial deviation was noted only several years after the injury.
Volar plates have been used with success to treat malunions of the distal radius by combining them with a corrective osteotomy . The advantage of a volar plate is that it does not require cast immobilization. The dorsal defect that is created after the opening wedge osteotomy requires filling with an appropriate bone graft. The graft may be packed in via the volar exposure; however, a limited dorsal approach is indicated to improve visualization. A volar approach not only involves thorough surgical dissection but also necessitates a separate incision for addressing ulnar shortening . For dorsally angulated fractures, techniques involving a dorsal approach and fixation are known to improve radiological parameters, as well as pain and function [4, 24]. Wieland, Dekkers and Brink reported good results in their series of malunited distal radius fractures using a dorsal open wedge osteotomy with a dorsal plate without bone graft . However, a prominent dorsal implant, extensor tenosynovitis, and rupture of extensor tendons have been reported as complications after use of a dorsal plate. Moreover, dorsally placed implants have thicker plates, raised screw heads, and they lack the ability to contour the plate to fit the bone [26, 27]. Though the advent of low-profile dorsal plates has solved this concern to some extent, this technique often requires dissection of the extensor retinaculum, and sometimes resection of Lister’s tubercle [27, 28].
The current technique retains the advantages of the dorsal approach, namely excellent exposure of the radius and ulna and minimal surgical dissection, and by using Kirschner wires instead of plate, the complications associated with dorsal plating are ameliorated. There is no need for a formal second surgery for implant removal, as K-wires and DRUJ screws were removed in an OPD setting. The excised ulna is used as a graft, further mitigating the morbidity associated with graft harvesting. The biggest advantage of the technique is that all the four components of the surgery, which include osteotomy of the distal radius, osteotomy of the ulna, harvesting the bone grafts and DRUJ reduction can be done through a single incision and in a single sitting. Also, cost of surgery is minimal, as we did not use volar locking plates. Though this technique requires cast immobilization, with aggressive physiotherapy good range of motion is gained.
Our recommendation is to utilize this technique for addressing neglected epiphyseal injuries leading to dorsal angulation of the distal radius, with positive ulnar variance and DRUJ disruption, as it leads to optimal outcome and minimal morbidity. However, studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up are required to further support this observation.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Source of funding (financial affiliations)
All patients gave informed consent prior to being included in the study. All procedures were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. The study was approved by the research ethics committee.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
- Pogue DJ, Viegas SF, Patterson RM, Peterson PD, Jenkins DK, Sweo TD et al (1990) Effects of distal radius fracture malunion on wrist joint mechanics. J Hand Surg Am 15(5):721–727View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Slagel B, Luenam S, Pichora D (2007) Management of post-traumatic malunion of fractures of the distal radius. Orthop Clin N Am 38(2):203–216View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Prommersberger KJ, Froehner SC, Schmitt RR, Lanz UB (2004) Rotational deformity in malunited fractures of the distal radius. J Hand Surg Am 29(1):110–115View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lodha SJ, Wysocki RW, Cohen MS (2011) Malunions of the distal radius. In: Chung KC (ed) Hand surgery update V. American Society for Surgery of the Hand, Rosemont, pp 125–137Google Scholar
- Blount WP (1940) Forearm fractures in children. Clin Orthop 51:93–107Google Scholar
- Gandhi RK, Wilson P, Mason Brown JJ, Macleod W (1962) Spontaneous correction of deformity following fractures of the forearm in children. Br J Surg 50:5–10View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Houshian S, Holst AK, Larsen MS, Torfing T (2004) Remodeling of Salter–Harris type II epiphyseal plate injury of the distal radius. J Pediatr Orthop 24(5):472–476View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nietosvaara Y, Hasler C, Helenius I, Cundy P (2005) Marked initial displacement predicts complications in physeal fractures of the distal radius: an analysis of fracture characteristics, primary treatment and complications in 109 patients. Acta Orthop 76(6):873–877View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Beaty JH, Kasser JR (2009) Fractures of the distal radius and ulna. In: Rockwood and Wilkins’ fractures in children, 7th edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 306–307Google Scholar
- Lee BS, Esterhai JL, Das M (1984) Fracture of the distal radial epiphysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 185:90–96Google Scholar
- Cannata G, De Maio F, Mancini F, Ippolito E (2003) Physeal fractures of the distal radius and ulna: long-term prognosis. J Orthop Trauma 17(3):172–179View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Meyerding HW, Overton LM (1935) Malunited fracture of the lower end of the radius (Colles’ fracture) treated by osteotomy. Minn Med 18:84–89Google Scholar
- Abzug JM, Little K, Kozin SH (2014) Physeal arrest of the distal radius. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 22(6):381–389. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-22-06-381 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Graham TJ (1997) Surgical correction of malunited fractures of the distal radius. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 5:270–281View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bronstein AJ, Trumble TE, Tencer AF (1997) The effects of distal radius fracture malalignment on forearm rotation: a cadaveric study. J Hand Surg Am 22(2):258–262View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Adams BD (1993) Effects of radial deformity on distal radioulnar joint mechanics. J Hand Surg Am 18(3):492–498View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gogna P, Selhi HS, Mohindra M, Singla R, Thora A, Yamin M (2014) Ulnar styloid fractures in distal radius fractures managed with volar locking plate: to fix or not? J Hand Microsurg 6(2):53–58View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Aitken AP (1935) The end results of the fractured distal radial epiphysis. J Bone Jt Surg 17(2):302–308Google Scholar
- Aitken AP (1935) Further observations on the fractured distal radial epiphysis. J Bone Jt Surg 17(4):922–927Google Scholar
- Salter RB, Harris WR (1963) Injuries involving the epiphyseal plate. J Bone Jt Surg Am 45:587–622View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Larsen E, Vittas D, Torp-Pedersen S (1988) Remodeling of angulated distal forearm fractures in children. Clin Orthop 237:190–195Google Scholar
- Crawford AH (1988) Pitfalls and complications of fractures of the distal radius and ulna in childhood. Hand Clin 4:403–413PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Davis DR, Green DP (1976) Forearm fractures in children. Pitfalls and complications. Clin Orthop 120:172–184Google Scholar
- Mahmoud M, El Shafie S, Kamal M (2012) Correction of dorsally-malunited extra-articular distal radial fractures using volar locked plates without bone grafting. J Bone Jt Surg Br 94(8):1090–1096View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wieland AW, Dekkers GH, Brink PR (2005) Open wedge osteotomy for malunited extra-articular distal radius fractures with plate osteosynthesis without bone grafting. Eur J Trauma 31:148–153View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jupiter JB (1999) Plate fixation of fractures of the distal aspect of the radius: relative indications. J Orthop Trauma 13(8):559–569View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Simic PM, Robison J, Gardner MJ, Gelberman RH, Weiland AJ, Boyer MI (2006) Treatment of distal radius fractures with a low-profile dorsal plating system: an outcomes assessment. J Hand Surg Am 31(3):382–386View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yu YR, Makhni MC, Tabrizi S, Rozental TD, Mundanthanam G, Day CS (2011) Complications of low-profile dorsal versus volar locking plates in the distal radius: a comparative study. J Hand Surg Am 36(7):1135–1141View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar