Continuing Education Activity

The forearm provides the bony structure and muscular origins that allow the hand to operate in many orientations. The two bones of the forearm (the radius and ulna) allow flexion and extension at the elbow and the wrist via diarthrodial joints. The radius and ulna exist in a delicate anatomical balance that allows for pronation and supination of the hand in a 180-degree arc of motion. This activity will briefly review the mechanism, diagnosis, and management of radius and ulna shaft fractures. Radius and ulna shaft fractures are one of the most common orthopedic injuries. Therefore, familiarity with these topics is necessary for the interprofessional team in academic and community settings.

Objectives:

• Identify the etiology of radius and ulna shaft fractures and emergencies.
• Determine the appropriate evaluation of radius and ulna shaft fractures.
• Assess the management options available for radius and ulna shaft fractures.
• Communicate interprofessional team strategies for improving care coordination and communication to advance the management of radius and ulna shaft fractures and improve outcomes.

Introduction

The hand plays a critical role in our interaction with the environment and allows us to interact with objects in space physically. The forearm provides the bony structure and muscular origins that allow the hand to operate in many orientations. The 2 bones of the forearm function to allow flexion and extension at the elbow as well as at the wrist via diarthrodial joints.

The radius and ulna exist in a delicate anatomical balance that allows for pronation and supination of the hand in a 180-degree arc of motion. The anatomical bow of the radius allows for rotation around a fixed ulna, and its structure is critical for this motion. Any disruption in the anatomy of the forearm can lead to a significant loss of the normal range of motion that allows for motions as complex as a golf swing or as simple as turning the page in a book.[1] The proximal ulna articulates with both the distal humerus, forming the ulnohumeral joint, and the proximal radius, forming the proximal radioulnar joint.

Multiple ligamentous structures stabilize the proximal radioulnar joint, and these ligaments are dynamic throughout forearm motion. The stability of this joint is critical to the overall stability of the elbow.[2] Similarly, the distal radioulnar joint integrity is equally crucial to the stability of the wrist.[3] An interosseous membrane joins the radius and ulnar diaphysis and is susceptible to injury during forearm fractures. This topic focuses on simultaneous diaphysial fractures of the radius and ulna in adults, often referred to as ‘both bone’ forearm fractures. Both bone fractures are traditionally seen in the pediatric population but are common in the skeletally mature individual.

Etiology

Both bone forearm fractures result from high-energy trauma in young individuals with age-appropriate bone quality. In adults, the common mechanisms that result in bone fractures are motor vehicle accidents, athletic injuries, and falls from height. Both bone forearm fractures that result from low-energy trauma, such as a fall from standing height, are typically only seen in individuals with impaired bone quality.[4]

Epidemiology

Despite the commonality of radius and ulnar shaft fractures, studies that define the epidemiology are scarce. There appears to be a bimodal age distribution with peaks before age 40 and after age 60. Men have similar rates of both bone fractures compared to women early in life. However, women experience a higher proportion of fractures after age 60.[5] High school athletes and active individuals have also been shown to be at-risk populations.[6][7]

Pathophysiology

The most common cause is trauma, typically from an axial load on an outstretched hand or a direct blow to the forearm. In the elderly, forearm fractures are often the result of poor bone quality secondary to osteoporosis. Less commonly, both bone forearm fractures can be an insufficiency fracture due to cancer or other pathologic bone disorders.[8]

History and Physical

Patients generally present with forearm pain after a high-energy mechanism of injury. As with any trauma, the priority is to rule out any life-threatening injuries first. Begin by following the trauma life support protocol, including primary and secondary surveys. Both bone forearm fractures often present with a visible deformity and have significant potential for open fractures. Thus, the skin surrounding the fracture site should be thoroughly examined.

If needed, open fractures should be treated with prompt antibiotics, irrigation, and a tetanus booster. The appropriate timing for debridement and closure is debated in the literature. A thorough neurovascular examination of the entire extremity should be performed. The anterior interosseous nerve (AIN), posterior interosseous nerve (PIN), and ulnar nerve distributions should be assessed for motor and sensory deficits. Motor function testing of the AIN can be performed by having the patient perform the ‘a-okay’ sign, the PIN with a ‘thumbs-up,’ and the ulnar nerve with the crossing of the fingers. The radial and ulnar arteries should also be assessed using Doppler if needed. Capillary refill to all digits should be evaluated, monitored, and appropriately documented.

While uncommon, concomitant injuries to the distal radioulnar joint should always be assessed by physical examination and radiographic parameters.[9] The volar and dorsal compartments of the forearm must always be assessed in the setting of an acute both-bone forearm fracture. An analysis of the national trauma database that included over 300,000 adults indicated that 1.22% of forearm fractures required fasciotomy for suspected or confirmed compartment syndrome.[10] Compartment syndrome can also occur in the setting of open fractures. Multiple studies on acute compartment syndrome of the forearm have demonstrated the presence of compartment syndrome in the setting of an open fracture.[11][12] 

Evaluation

Orthogonal radiographs of the forearm should be obtained while evaluating both bone forearm fractures. Standard radiographs should include an AP (anterior-posterior) and lateral views of the forearm. Oblique views of the forearm and imaging of the wrist and elbow should be considered as needed. CT scan is rarely required in the setting of both bone forearm fractures but can be useful for complex fractures or if there is a concern for intraarticular involvement.

Treatment / Management

Non-operative treatment of both bone forearm fractures in the pediatric population is common and typically results in a good to excellent outcome.[13] However, non-operative treatment of adult forearm fractures is rarely indicated, and the comparison of non-operative to operative treatment in the literature is scarce.[14] Isolated radial shaft fractures usually require surgical fixation to maintain adequate anatomic alignment and rotation.

Isolated minimal or non-displaced ulnar shaft fractures can be treated nonoperatively with casting or functional bracing, close follow-up, and serial examinations. Because most forearm fractures require surgery, initial reduction and immobilization should be performed to best prepare the patient for surgery.

Procedural sedation can reduce fractures, and a splint can be properly applied for significantly displaced fractures. Open fractures should be reduced and thoroughly irrigated, and antibiotics should be started immediately. Standard immobilization is achieved using a sugar-tong splint with the forearm in neutral rotation and the elbow flexed to 90 degrees. Surgical treatment options include open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and intramedullary nailing. Shorter intraoperative times and decreased scarring are observed benefits following fixation with intramedullary nailing.[15] However, achieving rotational stability and restoration of the radial bow is difficult with intramedullary nailing. ORIF with plate and screw construct is generally accepted as the gold standard for treatment.[16] Comparison of ORIF and intramedullary nailing has been inconclusive.[17][18] 

Some studies suggest that a hybrid fixation method of plate fixation of radius and intramedullary nailing of the ulna is a better approach as it shows good stability, fewer complications, and good clinical outcomes.[19] The fracture pattern typically dictates the type of plate and screw construct. Compression plating is often utilized for oblique or transverse fractures to achieve compression at the fracture site and promote primary bone healing. In the setting of long oblique or spiral fracture patterns, interfragmentary screws are utilized to provide compression at the fracture site, and a spanning plate is applied for neutralization.

Finally, bridge plating techniques are utilized for fractures with significant comminution and when interfragmentary compression is unattainable. Any fixation method aims to achieve anatomic length, alignment, and rotation across the fracture site. Bone grafting is often utilized if segmental defects are present. However, its effect on fracture union is debated.[20][21] Open fractures are classified using the Gustilo-Anderson classification system. Prompt administration of antibiotics is critical in the management of open fractures. Irrigation and debridement at the fixation time are indicated for all open fractures. The amount of soft tissue damage may dictate the chosen fixation method. For example, Gustilo-Anderson IIIB open fractures with large soft tissue defects may require temporary external fixation before definitive fixation and skin coverage.

Differential Diagnosis

The diagnosis of both bone forearm fractures is relatively straightforward with appropriate imaging. Associated injuries can often be ruled out with imaging of the elbow and wrist, as well as a thorough secondary assessment. Galeazzi and Monteggia fractures should be ruled out, as well as any both-bone forearm fracture. A Galeazzi fracture is described as a distal one-third radial shaft fracture with associated injury to the distal radioulnar joint.[22] A Monteggia fracture is described as a fracture of the proximal one-third of the ulnar shaft with associated radial head dislocation. These fracture patterns are more often seen in the pediatric population. Treatment of these fracture variants differs from that of both bone forearm fractures.

Treatment Planning

Treatment planning in both bone forearm fractures depends on many factors. Some of these factors include affected bones, mechanism of the injury, fracture pattern, soft tissue status, demographics, degree of initial displacement, etc. The treatment outcome also depends on the above factors and the accuracy of the reduction in angulation, length, and rotation of the reduced fractures.[23] 

Surgical Approaches for Radius

Henry's Approach

The anterior (Henry) approach best provides a fair exposure of the whole radius. The landmark of the incision extends from the bicep tendon to the radial styloid. The incision is made over the fracture site, and dissection is made between the brachioradialis and flexor carpi radialis muscle. The radial nerve and radial artery, which run under the brachioradialis muscle, are retracted. Every effort should be made to maintain the forearm in supination to move the posterior interosseous nerve away from the operative field. For proximal forearm exposure, the supinator muscle is cut medially at the insertion site, and the plate is placed under the reflected part. The forearm is pronated to release the pronator teres from insertion partially. For distal radius exposures, flexor policies longus and pronator quadratus are mobilized from the radius.[24][25]

Thompson Approach

This posterolateral approach is less commonly used due to implant-related complications (tendon injury & implant irritation). The landmark for incision extends from the lateral epicondyle to the Lister's tubercle. The dissection is made between the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) and extensor digitorum communis (EDC) proximally. In contrast, the inter-nervous plane between extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) and extensor pollicis longus (EPL) is used for distal forearm exposure. Like the volar approach, supination is maintained to save the posterior interosseous nerve.[26]

Direct Lateral Approach

This approach avoids major neurovascular bundles at risk in both surgical approaches. The incision is made over the mobile wad, and the plane is made between the extensor carpi radialis longus (ECRL) and extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) proximally. The distal direct lateral approach involves an interval between extensor carpi radialis longus (ECRL) and brachioradialis (BR).[27]

Surgical Approach for Ulna

The universal approach for the ulna involves an incision over the shaft of the ulnar border. The dissection is made between the extensor carpi ulnaris and flexor carpi ulnaris muscle. The plate is usually placed over the medial or ulnar surface of the ulna.[28]

Prognosis

The prognosis after both bone forearm fractures is generally very good. Studies have shown very high union rates in 2 months following operative fixation.[29][30] Range of motion wrist and elbow exercises are encouraged early following operative fixation, often within 1 week. Mild decreases in grip strength and range of motion have been observed; however, disability rates are low.[31][32][33]

Complications

Acute compartment syndrome is a devastating complication of both bone forearm fractures treated with or without surgery. If compartment syndrome is confirmed or suspected, emergent fasciotomy should be performed.[34] Complications following the surgical intervention of both bone forearm fractures include infection, bleeding, non-union, malunion, cross-union, and neurovascular injury. These are minimized by routine surgical safety measures, including medically optimizing the patient before surgery, using standard approaches, and administering antibiotics perioperatively. Using bone grafting for significantly comminuted or segmental fractures may decrease non-union risk.[35]

The risk of radioulnar synostosis has been associated with a single-incision approach.[36] Inadequately treatment or reduction of both bone forearm fractures can cause significant loss of motion and function. Malunion particularly limits the pronation-supination movements.[37] Hardware may become bothersome and necessitate removal. There is an increased risk of refracture after plate and screw removal. Initial characteristics of the fracture, early removal, lack of bracing after hardware removal, and plate characteristics all appear to influence the risk of refracture.[38] Disruption of the proximal or distal radioulnar joints and the radiocapitellar joint should be appropriately evaluated for and treated as there are unique complications with these injuries.[36]

Postoperative and Rehabilitation Care

Following fixation of radius and ulna shaft fractures, the patient should be placed into a splint that immobilizes the elbow and forearm on the affected extremity. The fingers and thumb should be left free to encourage a range of motion and prevent stiffness. Typically, the patient can begin range of motion exercises of the elbow and forearm 5 to 7 days post-surgery. The patient should be routinely followed postoperatively until the soft tissues have healed and the bone union has been confirmed radiographically. This usually occurs around 2 to 3 months post-surgery. Once the bone union has been confirmed, the patient can resume most activities using the affected limb.[14]

Deterrence and Patient Education

Routine safety precautions in high-velocity situations should be implemented, such as wearing a seatbelt while driving a car. Once the injury is sustained, patients should promptly present to a trauma center for evaluation. Patients who sustain both bone forearm fractures should be educated on the typical clinical course as well as the most common complications. The signs and symptoms of compartment syndrome should be discussed in detail.

Often, patients are immobilized in a splint and are given follow-up at an orthopedic surgery clinic. Splint care instructions should be provided, and the importance of follow-up should be stressed. Modifiable complication risk factors should be addressed at the initial visit, including tobacco cessation. The patient should not be allowed to bear weight on the affected extremity, and if rehabilitation therapy with a physical therapist is necessary, that can be scheduled at this time.

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

Appropriate initial management by an interprofessional healthcare team of clinicians, specialists, nurses, and physical therapists can make a significant difference in the long-term outcomes for patients who suffer from these fractures. Antibiotics should be administered for open fractures as quickly as possible, and a thorough neurovascular and soft tissue assessment should be completed. If compartment syndrome is suspected, surgical consultation should be made immediately. An urgent closed reduction should then be performed, and medical clearance for surgery should be obtained when indicated. The importance of follow-up should be stressed, and detailed follow-up information should be provided to the patient. If patients require physical therapy, they must comply with their rehabilitation regimen to achieve maximum recovery. 

All care team members must engage in open communication with each other, particularly if any complications develop. Clinicians are crucial resources in this effort, helping coordinate activities and referrals between specialists, surgeons, and therapists. Thorough and updated record-keeping is also part of this communication strategy so that all team members can access the latest patient status. This interprofessional team paradigm yields the best patient results with the fewest adverse events.

Review Questions

• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Comment on this article.

References

1.

Matthews LS, Kaufer H, Garver DF, Sonstegard DA. The effect on supination-pronation of angular malalignment of fractures of both bones of the forearm. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982 Jan;64(1):14-7. [PubMed: 7054197]

2.

Weiss AP, Hastings H. The anatomy of the proximal radioulnar joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1992 Jul;1(4):193-9. [PubMed: 22971623]

3.

Arias DG, Black AC, Varacallo M. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Jul 30, 2023. Anatomy, Shoulder and Upper Limb, Distal Radio-Ulnar Joint. [PubMed: 31613500]

4.

Osterhoff G, Morgan EF, Shefelbine SJ, Karim L, McNamara LM, Augat P. Bone mechanical properties and changes with osteoporosis. Injury. 2016 Jun;47 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S11-20. [PMC free article: PMC4955555] [PubMed: 27338221]

5.

ALFFRAM PA, BAUER GC. Epidemiology of fractures of the forearm. A biomechanical investigation of bone strength. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1962 Jan;44-A:105-14. [PubMed: 14036674]

6.

Stattin K, Hållmarker U, Ärnlöv J, James S, Michaëlsson K, Byberg L. Decreased Hip, Lower Leg, and Humeral Fractures but Increased Forearm Fractures in Highly Active Individuals. J Bone Miner Res. 2018 Oct;33(10):1842-1850. [PubMed: 29933501]

7.

Swenson DM, Yard EE, Collins CL, Fields SK, Comstock RD. Epidemiology of US high school sports-related fractures, 2005-2009. Clin J Sport Med. 2010 Jul;20(4):293-9. [PubMed: 20606515]

8.

Drake MT. Osteoporosis and cancer. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2013 Sep;11(3):163-70. [PMC free article: PMC3783531] [PubMed: 23877475]

9.

Ryan MK, MacKay BJ, Tejwani NC. Both-bone forearm fracture with distal radioulnar joint dislocation. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2013 May;42(5):E30-2. [PubMed: 23710483]

10.

Saiz AM, Wellman AC, Stwalley D, Wolinsky P, Miller AN. The Incidence and Risk Factors Associated With the Need for Fasciotomy in Tibia and Forearm Fractures: An Analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank. J Orthop Trauma. 2020 May;34(5):e154-e158. [PMC free article: PMC7991978] [PubMed: 31738240]

11.

Duckworth AD, Mitchell SE, Molyneux SG, White TO, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM. Acute compartment syndrome of the forearm. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 May 16;94(10):e63. [PubMed: 22617929]

12.

Broström LA, Stark A, Svartengren G. Acute compartment syndrome in forearm fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 1990 Feb;61(1):50-3. [PubMed: 2336952]

13.

Hadizie D, Munajat I. Both-Bone Forearm Fractures in Children with Minimum Four Years of Growth Remaining: Can Cast Achieve a Good Outcome at Skeletal Maturity? Malays Orthop J. 2017 Nov;11(3):1-9. [PMC free article: PMC5753522] [PubMed: 29326760]

14.

Schulte LM, Meals CG, Neviaser RJ. Management of adult diaphyseal both-bone forearm fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014 Jul;22(7):437-46. [PubMed: 24966250]

15.

Zhao L, Wang B, Bai X, Liu Z, Gao H, Li Y. Plate Fixation Versus Intramedullary Nailing for Both-Bone Forearm Fractures: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies. World J Surg. 2017 Mar;41(3):722-733. [PubMed: 27778077]

16.

Iacobellis C, Biz C. Plating in diaphyseal fractures of the forearm. Acta Biomed. 2014 Jan 23;84(3):202-11. [PubMed: 24458165]

17.

Street DM. Intramedullary forearm nailing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Nov;(212):219-30. [PubMed: 3769288]

18.

Jones DB, Kakar S. Adult diaphyseal forearm fractures: intramedullary nail versus plate fixation. J Hand Surg Am. 2011 Jul;36(7):1216-9. [PubMed: 21571446]

19.

Zhang XF, Huang JW, Mao HX, Chen WB, Luo Y. Adult diaphyseal both-bone forearm fractures: A clinical and biomechanical comparison of four different fixations. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016 May;102(3):319-25. [PubMed: 26952706]

20.

Wei SY, Born CT, Abene A, Ong A, Hayda R, DeLong WG. Diaphyseal forearm fractures treated with and without bone graft. J Trauma. 1999 Jun;46(6):1045-8. [PubMed: 10372622]

21.

Wright RR, Schmeling GJ, Schwab JP. The necessity of acute bone grafting in diaphyseal forearm fractures: a retrospective review. J Orthop Trauma. 1997 May;11(4):288-94. [PubMed: 9258828]

22.

Yohe NJ, De Tolla J, Kaye MB, Edelstein DM, Choueka J. Irreducible Galeazzi Fracture-Dislocations. Hand (N Y). 2019 Mar;14(2):249-252. [PMC free article: PMC6436135] [PubMed: 29185351]

23.

Asadollahi S, Pourali M, Heidari K. Predictive factors for re-displacement in diaphyseal forearm fractures in children-role of radiographic indices. Acta Orthop. 2017 Feb;88(1):101-108. [PMC free article: PMC5251255] [PubMed: 27841692]

24.

Bartoníček J, Naňka O, Tuček M. [Approaches to radial shaft]. Rozhl Chir. 2015 Oct;94(10):415-24. [PubMed: 26556019]

25.

Klausmeyer MA, Mudgal C. Exposure of the forearm and distal radius. Hand Clin. 2014 Nov;30(4):427-33, v. [PubMed: 25440071]

26.

Murphy M, Teasdall RJ, Comadoll S, Aneja A. Dorsal Thompson: Approach to the Proximal Radial Shaft. J Orthop Trauma. 2021 Aug 01;35(Suppl 2):S16-S17. [PubMed: 34227594]

27.

Haseeb M, Muzafar K, Ghani A, Bhat KA, Butt MF. A fresh look at radial shaft fracture fixation: The lateral approach to the radius. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2018 May-Aug;26(2):2309499018780871. [PubMed: 29890885]

28.

Catalano LW, Zlotolow DA, Hitchcock PB, Shah SN, Barron OA. Surgical exposures of the radius and ulna. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011 Jul;19(7):430-8. [PubMed: 21724922]

29.

Chapman MW, Gordon JE, Zissimos AG. Compression-plate fixation of acute fractures of the diaphyses of the radius and ulna. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989 Feb;71(2):159-69. [PubMed: 2918001]

30.

Anderson LD, Sisk D, Tooms RE, Park WI. Compression-plate fixation in acute diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975 Apr;57(3):287-97. [PubMed: 1091653]

31.

Droll KP, Perna P, Potter J, Harniman E, Schemitsch EH, McKee MD. Outcomes following plate fixation of fractures of both bones of the forearm in adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Dec;89(12):2619-24. [PubMed: 18056493]

32.

Goldfarb CA, Ricci WM, Tull F, Ray D, Borrelli J. Functional outcome after fracture of both bones of the forearm. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Mar;87(3):374-9. [PubMed: 15773649]

33.

Bot AG, Doornberg JN, Lindenhovius AL, Ring D, Goslings JC, van Dijk CN. Long-term outcomes of fractures of both bones of the forearm. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Mar 16;93(6):527-32. [PubMed: 21411702]

34.

Ayzenberg M, Tiedeken NC, Arango DE, Raphael J. Acute Both Bone Fracture in a Chronic Contracted Forearm. J Orthop Case Rep. 2016 Nov-Dec;6(5):55-58. [PMC free article: PMC5404164] [PubMed: 28845395]

35.

Ring D, Allende C, Jafarnia K, Allende BT, Jupiter JB. Ununited diaphyseal forearm fractures with segmental defects: plate fixation and autogenous cancellous bone-grafting. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Nov;86(11):2440-5. [PubMed: 15523016]

36.

Bauer G, Arand M, Mutschler W. Post-traumatic radioulnar synostosis after forearm fracture osteosynthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1991;110(3):142-5. [PubMed: 2059537]

37.

Kim SB, Heo YM, Yi JW, Lee JB, Lim BG. Shaft Fractures of Both Forearm Bones: The Outcomes of Surgical Treatment with Plating Only and Combined Plating and Intramedullary Nailing. Clin Orthop Surg. 2015 Sep;7(3):282-90. [PMC free article: PMC4553274] [PubMed: 26330948]

38.

Rumball K, Finnegan M. Refractures after forearm plate removal. J Orthop Trauma. 1990;4(2):124-9. [PubMed: 2358925]

Disclosure: Roy Small declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Muhammad Taqi declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Amjad Yaish declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.