Background: It remains unclear whether exposure for planned fixation of distal radius fractrues is superior with any given approach, and whether a single utilitarian approach exists that permits reliable complete exposure of the volar distal radius.
Methods: A cadaveric study was performed using 10 matched specimens. Group 1 consisted of 3 radially based approaches (standard flexor carpi radialis [FCR], standard FCR with radial retraction of FCR and flexor pollicis longus [FPL] tendons, extended FCR). Group 2 consisted of 2 ulnarly based approaches (volar ulnar, extended carpal tunnel). The primary outcome was total width of exposed distal radius at the watershed line. Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon rank testing was used to identify differences.
Results: The standard FCR approach exposed 29 mm (90%), leaving on average 3 mm (10%) of the ulnar corner unexposed. Retracting the FCR and FPL tendons radially allows for an extra 1 mm of volar ulnar corner exposure. Finally, converting to an extended FCR approach provided 100% exposure in all specimens. The volar ulnar exposure however provided exposure to only 9 mm (37%), leaving 20 mm (62.5%) left unexposed radially. The extended carpal tunnel provided exposure to 21 mm (65%), leaving 11 mm (35%) radially unexposed. Differences between each group were statistically significant (P < .05).
Conclusions: The extended FCR approach exposed 100% of the volar distal radius in our study and may serve as a utilitarian volar surgical approach for exposure and fixation of distal radius fractures. Additional knowledge of the limitations of alternative approaches can be helpful in surgical planning.
Keywords: anatomy; distal radius; exposures; extended FCR; volar ulnar corner.