Do Generic Volar Locking Plates Provide Similar Outcomes at a Reduced Cost?

Patients will be consented to surgery per a standard surgical consent form. Six surgeons who regularly perform distal radius fracture (DRF) ORIF are included (five hand and one orthopaedic trauma fellowship-trained). Per the practice protocol, patients will either be treated with a generic plate or a brand name plate as described above. Ultimately, the decision to use a generic volar locking plate (VLP) is left up to surgeon discretion. All surgical and follow-up data will be collected. Implants used, age at time of surgery, weight, height, gender, race, ethnicity, comorbidities (diabetes, heart disease, etc.), complications including, but not limited to: readmission, reoperation, non-union, wound dehiscence, and lab tests will be collected. This will be evaluated all within 90 days following surgery. Implants will be cross referenced with the institution's data base to determine cost. All data will be collected on a secure server and be kept password protected. The primary outcome was 90-day postoperative complications (readmissions, reoperations, and mortality rates) by implant vendor type (generic vs. conventional). Secondary outcomes consisted of implant costs, estimated blood loss, and tourniquet time. An a priori power analysis was conducted to estimate the minimum sample size needed to adequately detect a difference in reoperation rates with a large effect size (Cohen's d=0.8). At a Type I error rate of 0.05, a power of 80%, and a 1:1 group allocation, the estimated sample size was 36 patients (18 generic VLPs vs. 18 conventional VLPs). Statistical significance was set to p≤0.05.

Inclusion criteria

• Isolated distal radius fracture
• Treated surgically with a volar locking plate

Exclusion criteria

• Volar locking plate not used
• Additional fixation was used
• Polytrauma (non-isolated injury)
• Open fracture
• <18 years old