Conclusions
fracture, Colles’ type of DRFs, Colles’ type DRF
We found a slight, but consistent difference in functional results between the VFUDC and FC groups. Our results suggest that FC produces non-inferior results compared to VFUDC in the treatment of Colles’ type of DRFs at 2 years with fewer problems and unnecessary healthcare provider visits, and less treatment-related burden. Cost analysis revealed costs were nearly double in the VFUDC group compared to the FC group, mostly due to more frequent physical therapy, surgery, and additional visits to hospital and additional examinations. Regardless of the more frequent physiotherapy visits, the VFUDC group had consistently slightly inferior functional results. In conclusion, we recommend the use of FC in older patients with Colles’ type DRF. Moreover, careful critical consideration should be given to routine physiotherapy guidance among older patients with distal radius fracture.