https://www.jbjs.org/reader.php?rsuite_id=2699881&type=pdf&name=JBJS.20.00275.pdf Analysis this and make a journal club ppt for me
Reading File
Reading Web Page
journal article study design methods results conclusion
Reading File
Reading Web Page
study design population inclusion exclusion criteria randomization primary outcome secondary outcome statistics results
Running Command
Writing File
Running Command
Running Command
Your journal club presentation is ready:
VLP vs EF JournalClub
Presentation · PPTX
Here's what's included across 12 slides in a navy/teal/gold color scheme:
| Slide | Content |
|---|---|
| 1 | Title - Paper citation, Level I evidence badge |
| 2 | Background & PICO - Clinical context + structured PICO framework |
| 3 | Study Design & Methods - Design, inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample size calculation |
| 4 | Patient Flow (CONSORT) - Randomization diagram, VLP vs EF group allocation, follow-up numbers |
| 5 | Primary Outcome: PRWHE - Table with scores at 6 wk/3 mo/1 yr with p-values, key finding callout |
| 6 | Secondary Outcomes - ROM table (% of uninjured side), QuickDASH scores, full recovery rates, pain VAS |
| 7 | Complications - Major and minor complication tables side-by-side with p-values |
| 8 | Radiographic Outcomes - Radial inclination, volar tilt, radial height, ulnar variance |
| 9 | Critical Appraisal - Strengths vs. Limitations in a two-column layout |
| 10 | Discussion Points - 5 thought-provoking questions for journal club debate |
| 11 | Conclusions - 5 numbered key takeaways |
| 12 | Thank You / Reference - Full citation + trial registration number |
canu send me the text for each side?
Here's the full text for each slide:
Slide 1 – Title
JOURNAL CLUB
Volar Locking Plate vs. External Fixation for Distal Radial Fractures
A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Wretenberg et al. | J Bone Joint Surg Am 2021;103:405-414
Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I • JBJS.20.00275
Slide 2 – Background & Clinical Question
Background
- Distal radial fractures are the most common fractures in adults
- Displaced extra-articular types (OTA/AO A3) are common in active working-age patients
- Both Volar Locking Plate (VLP) and External Fixation (EF) are established treatments
- Earlier small RCTs reported conflicting results with methodological limitations
- No definitive large RCT existed to guide practice
Clinical Question (PICO)
- P - Adults 18-70 yrs with displaced extra-articular distal radial fracture (OTA/AO type A3)
- I - Volar Locking Plate (VLP) fixation
- C - External Fixation (EF)
- O - PRWHE score, QuickDASH, ROM, pain (VAS), radiographic outcomes, complications at 6 wk, 3 mo, 1 yr
Slide 3 – Study Design & Methods
Design
- Multicenter RCT
- 2 parallel treatment arms
- Norway (3 centers)
- Block randomization by biostatistician
- NCT01904084
Inclusion Criteria
- Age 18-70 years
- Displaced extra-articular distal radial fracture (OTA/AO A3)
- Fracture requiring operative treatment
Exclusion Criteria
- Intra-articular fractures
- Open fractures
- Bilateral fractures
- Dementia or psychiatric disorders
- Inability to comply with follow-up
Sample size: 160 patients planned (80/group, α=0.05, power=80%, SD=21, MID=11.5 PRWHE pts) | Final: 75 VLP + 75 EF = 150 randomized
Slide 4 – Patient Flow (CONSORT)
- Assessed for eligibility (n = 160 planned)
- Randomized (n = 150)
- VLP Group (n = 75) | EF Group (n = 75)
| Follow-up | VLP | EF |
|---|---|---|
| 6 Weeks | n = 75 | n = 75 |
| 3 Months | n = 75 | n = 75 |
| 1 Year | n = 71 | n = 71 |
8 lost / excluded (ITT analysis performed)
Slide 5 – Primary Outcome: PRWHE Score
PRWHE score range: 0-100 • Lower = Better • MID = 11.5 points • Primary outcome at 6 wk, 3 mo, 1 yr
| Timepoint | VLP (mean±SD) | EF (mean±SD) | Difference | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 Weeks | 30 ± 21 | 46 ± 22 | -16 pts | < 0.001 |
| 3 Months | 15 ± 15 | 21 ± 18 | -6 pts | 0.016 |
| 1 Year | 8 ± 12 | 11 ± 13 | -3 pts | 0.13 |
Key Finding: VLP showed significantly better PRWHE at 6 weeks and 3 months. At 1 year, no significant difference was detected (p = 0.13). VLP provides faster functional recovery but equivalent long-term outcomes.
Slide 6 – Secondary Outcomes: ROM & QuickDASH
Range of Motion (% of uninjured side)
| Motion | VLP 6wk | EF 6wk | p | VLP 1yr | EF 1yr | p 1yr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexion | 68.6% | 54.8% | <0.001 | 97% | 94% | 0.66 |
| Extension | 62.0% | 3.8% | <0.001 | 93% | 91% | 0.013 |
| Supination | 74.1% | 42.5% | <0.001 | 99% | 93% | 0.03 |
| Grip Strength | ~69% | ~51% | <0.001 | 97% | 95% | 0.70 |
QuickDASH Score (lower = better)
| Timepoint | VLP | EF | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 Weeks | 27 | 45 | <0.001 |
| 3 Months | 15 | 22 | 0.023 |
| 1 Year | 9 | 12 | 0.36 |
Full Recovery (PRWHE ≤ 10): 6 wk - VLP 23% vs EF 6% | 3 mo - VLP 58% vs EF 47% | 1 yr - VLP 81% vs EF 79%
Pain (VAS): No significant difference at rest at any timepoint. VLP had significantly less pain during activity at 3 months and 1 year.
Slide 7 – Complications
Major Complications
| Complication | VLP (n=75) | EF (n=75) | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| CRPS | 4% | 11% | 0.14 |
| Carpal Tunnel Syndrome | 7% | 4% | 0.49 |
| Prolonged Wrist Pain | 3% | 3% | 1.0 |
| Deep Infection | 1% | 0% | 1.0 |
| Suboptimal Osteosynthesis | 1% | 4% | 0.62 |
| Plate Removal | 7% | - | 0.025* |
| Total Major | 23% | 25% | 0.83 |
Minor Complications
| Complication | VLP | EF | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Superficial Infection | 1% | 10% | 0.063 |
| Scar Tissue | 7% | 8% | 0.83 |
| Paresthesia | 6% | 7% | 1.0 |
| Neuropathy | 3% | 3% | 1.0 |
| Total Minor | 25% | 32% | 0.36 |
Plate removal was unique to VLP (5/75, 7%). EF showed trend toward more CRPS (11% vs 4%, p=0.14) and superficial infection (10% vs 1%, p=0.063). No significant difference in overall complication rate.
Slide 8 – Radiographic Outcomes
Radiographic parameters were measured at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively.
| Parameter | VLP 6wk | EF 6wk | VLP 1yr | EF 1yr | Favors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radial Inclination | 22° | 20° | 22° | 21° | VLP |
| Volar Tilt | 8° | 4° | 9° | 6° | VLP |
| Radial Height | 12mm | 10mm | 12mm | 11mm | VLP |
| Ulnar Variance | 0.3mm | 1.2mm | 0.2mm | 0.8mm | VLP |
VLP maintained significantly better radiographic alignment at all timepoints. Anatomic reduction achieved more reliably with VLP. Despite radiographic differences, 1-year functional outcomes were similar, suggesting moderate correlation between radiographic and functional results.
Slide 9 – Critical Appraisal: Strengths & Limitations
Strengths
- Level I RCT - highest level of therapeutic evidence
- Multicenter design (3 Norwegian centers) improves generalizability
- Block randomization by independent biostatistician
- ITT analysis maintained allocation integrity
- Validated PROMs: PRWHE + QuickDASH
- Multiple timepoints: 6 wk, 3 mo, 1 yr
- Blinded radiographic assessment
- Adequate power calculation performed a priori
Limitations
- Follow-up limited to 1 year - no long-term data
- Only extra-articular A3 fractures - limited generalizability
- Cannot blind patients or surgeons to treatment
- Norwegian population - may not reflect other demographics
- Surgeon experience with both methods not standardized
- No cost-effectiveness analysis reported
- Post-op rehabilitation protocols not fully standardized
Slide 10 – Discussion Points for Journal Club
-
Is 1-year follow-up sufficient? - Distal radius fractures may continue to remodel. Longer follow-up needed to assess arthritic change, implant failure, or late CRPS.
-
Does faster recovery justify higher cost of VLP? - VLP hardware is significantly more expensive. Earlier return-to-work may offset cost in younger working-age patients.
-
Generalizability to intra-articular fractures? - This trial excluded intra-articular types - VLP advantage may be even greater where exact reduction is critical.
-
Plate removal in 7% of VLP patients - significant? - EF avoids plate removal but has higher CRPS trend (11%) and more superficial infections. Trade-off differs by patient profile.
-
Role of surgeon volume/learning curve? - VLP requires more surgical skill. Outcomes at lower-volume centers may differ. Multicenter design partially addresses this.
Slide 11 – Conclusions
- VLP provides significantly faster functional recovery than EF at 6 weeks and 3 months post-op for OTA/AO type A3 distal radial fractures.
- At 1 year, no statistically significant difference in PRWHE or QuickDASH scores between VLP and EF.
- VLP demonstrated better range of motion (particularly extension and supination) throughout follow-up.
- Complication profiles differ: VLP carries a 7% plate removal rate; EF has a trend toward more CRPS and superficial infection.
- VLP should be considered the preferred treatment for displaced extra-articular distal radial fractures, especially in patients requiring earlier return to function.
Slide 12 – Thank You / References
Thank You
Questions & Discussion
Citation:
Wretenberg P, et al. Volar Locking Plate Versus External Fixation for Displaced Extra-Articular Distal Radial Fractures: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103(5):405-414. doi: JBJS.20.00275
Level of Evidence I • Therapeutic RCT • ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01904084
This is a shared conversation. Sign in to Orris to start your own chat.