DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20161202

Results of the distal radius fractures intervened initially by traditional bonesetters

Neritan Myderrizi

Abstract


Background: Poor results of the fractures could be result of the intervention of the bone setters. The aim of this study was to analyze functional outcome of the patients intervened initially by a bonesetter.

Methods: 179 outpatients with distal radius fractures treated at emergency department of regional hospital of Durres from January 2014 to December 2014 were studied, divided in two groups; presented direct to the hospital (H) and intervened initially by a bonesetter (B). All patient demographics and social data were studied. Anatomic and functional results of the patient were estimated.

Results: 179 patients, 114 (63.9%) females with mean age 53.9 years.  115 (64.2%) lived in a rural area. 118 (65.9%) of patients came direct to hospital and 61 (34.1%) were intervened initially by a bonesetter. The mean time of the patients being present to emergency was 1.78±0.8 for group H and 23.6±13.1 for group B. The majority of the fractures are extra articular 108 (60.3%). We had excellent anatomic results in 16 (8.9%), good in 39 (21.8%), fair in 60 (33.5%) and poor in 64 (35.8%). Mean QuickDASH Scores for group H was 50±23 and 80±13 for group B, (p<0.001).

Conclusions: Poor functional results come from the distal radius fractures intervened initially by bonesetters. Patients education and dissemination of information about the trauma, trauma system and complication coming from inadequate treatment, will be effective in prevention of complications regarding bonesetter interventions.


Keywords


Distal radius fractures, Bonesetter

Full Text:

PDF

References


Zehir S, Zehir R, Sahin E,Akgul T, Sehir S, Subasi M. Bonesetter interventions and consequences. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2015;49(4):416-20.

Vukasinović Z, Spasovski D, Zivković Z. Musculoskeletal trauma services in Serbia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2337-42.

World Health Organization (WHO). The promotionand Development of Traditional Medicine. TRS No.622,WHO, Geneva 1978.

Doğan A, Sungur I, Bilgic S, Uslu M, Atik B, Tan O, et al. Amputations in eastern Turkey (Van): a multicenter epidemiological study. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2008;42:53-8.

Ofiaeli RO. Complications of methods of fracture treatment used by traditional healers: a report of three cases necessitating amputation at Ihiala, Nigeria. Trop Doct. 1991;21:182-3.

Ekere AU, Echem RC. Complications of Fracture and dislocation by traditional bone setters: a private practice experience. The Nigerian Health Journal. 2011;11(4):131-8.

Batra S, Gupta A. The effect of fracture-related factors on the functional outcome at 1 year in distal radius fractures. Injury. 2002;33:499-502.

Kennedy CA, Beaton DE, Solway S, McConnell S, Bombardier C. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). The DASH and QuickDASH Outcome Measure User’s Manual, Third Edition. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Work & Health, 2011.

Agarwal A, Agarwal R. The practice and tradition of bonesetting. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2010;23:225.

OlaOlorun DA, Oladiran IO, Adeniran A. Complications of fracture treatment by traditional bonesetters in southwest Nigeria. Fam Pract. 2001;18:635-7.

Butt MF, Dhar SA, Gani NU, Kawoosa AA. Complications of paediatric elbow trauma treatment by traditional bonesetters. Trop Doct. 2009;39:104-7.

Wilson JN. Iatrogenic gangrene in the Third World. Trop Doct.1991;21:137-8.

Bamidele JO, Adebimpe WO, Oladele EA. Knowledge, attitude and use of alternative medical therapy amongst urban residents of Osun State, southwestern Nigeria. Afr J Tradit Complement Altern Med. 2009;6:281-8.