Predictors of Return after Cast Removal in Patients with a Nonoperatively Treated Distal Radius Fracture

Abstract

Patients with a nonoperatively treated fracture of the distal radius are often scheduled for a follow-up appointment after cast removal to assess function and outcome. Our experience is that, once the cast is off, many patients do not return. The purpose of this study was to determine which variables significantly influence return for a scheduled visit after cast removal. Thirty-seven patients enrolled in a prospective cohort study (27 men and 10 women) with an average age of 49 years (range, 19 to 82) had a distal radius fracture immobilized in a cast. During the visit at which the cast was removed, arm-specific disability, misinterpretation of nociception, and symptoms of depression were measured using validated questionnaires. Eleven of 37 patients did not attend the final scheduled office visit and the only predictor of a return visit was older age.

Keywords

Return - Cast - Removal - Distal radius - Nonoperative

• References

• 1 Arafa M, Haines J, Noble J, Carden D. Immediate mobilization of fractures of the neck of the fifth metacarpal. Injury 1986; 17: 277-278
• 2 Bansal R, Craigen MA. Fifth metacarpal neck fractures: is follow-up required?. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2007; 32: 69-73
• 3 Braakman M, Oderwald EE, Haentjens MH. Functional taping of fractures of the 5th metacarpal results in a quicker recovery. Injury 1998; 29: 5-9
• 4 Ford DJ, Ali MS, Steel WM. Fractures of the fifth metacarpal neck: is reduction or immobilisation necessary?. J Hand Surg Br 1989; 14: 165-167
• 5 Harding IJ, Parry D, Barrington RL. The use of a moulded metacarpal brace versus neighbour strapping for fractures of the little finger metacarpal neck. J Hand Surg Br 2001; 26: 261-263
• 6 Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 1996; 29: 602-608
• 7 Midgley R, Toemen A. Evaluation of an evidence-based patient pathway for non-surgical and surgically managed metacarpal fractures. Hand Therapy 2011; 16: 19-25
• 8 Murnaghan ML, Buckley RE. Lost but not forgotten: patients lost to follow-up in a trauma database. Can J Surg 2002; 45: 191-195
• 9 Murray DW, Britton AR, Bulstrode CJ. Loss to follow-up matters. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997; 79: 254-257
• 10 Norquist BM, Goldberg BA, Matsen 3rd FA. Challenges in evaluating patients lost to follow-up in clinical studies of rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000; 82: 838-842
• 11 Osman A, Barrios FX, Gutierrez PM, Kopper BA, Merrifield T, Grittmann L. The pain catastrophizing scale: further psychometric evaluation with adult samples. J Behav Med 2000; 23: 351-365
• 12 Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. J Appl Psychol Meas 1977; 1: 385-401
• 13 Solberg TK, Sorlie A, Sjaavik K, Nygaard OP, Ingebrigtsen T. Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine?. Acta Orthop 2011; 82: 56-63
• 14 Sullivan MJL, Pivik J. The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess 1995; 7: 524-532
• 15 Tejwani NC, Takemoto RC, Nayak G, Pahk B, Egol KA. Who is lost to followup?: a study of patients with distal radius fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 468: 599-604
• 16 Weissman MM, Sholomskas D, Pottenger M, Prusoff BA, Locke BZ. Assessing depressive symptoms in five psychiatric populations: a validation study. Am J Epidemiol 1977; 106: 203-214
• 17 Wildner M. Lost to follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995; 77: 657