Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Feb 7;20(1):146.
doi: 10.1186/s13018-025-05558-w.

External validation and revision of the Lafontaine criteria for unstable distal radius fractures: a retrospective study

Pornpanit Dissaneewate  1 , Phatklao Thanavirun  1 , Yanin Tangjaroenpaisan  1 , Kantapon Dissaneewate  2   3
Affiliations

External validation and revision of the Lafontaine criteria for unstable distal radius fractures: a retrospective study

Pornpanit Dissaneewate et al. J Orthop Surg Res. .

Abstract

Background: The Lafontaine criteria are the most commonly cited criteria for predicting unstable distal radius fractures. However, formal validation of the performance of these criteria remains limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the Lafontaine criteria as a diagnostic prediction rule for distal radius fractures, assess the inter-rater reliability and predictive ability of various parameters for distal radius instability, and develop new criteria for fracture instability using reliable and highly predictive factors.

Methods: This retrospective study included 274 adult patients with acute distal radius fractures treated with closed reduction and immobilisation between January 2019 and December 2022. Patients who underwent immediate surgery, were lost to follow-up before 4 weeks, or had unacceptable alignment after reduction were excluded. The Lafontaine criteria were validated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Criteria with an AUROC > 0.7 were considered acceptable. The criteria were updated using risk factors with stronger associations in the multivariable logistic regression analysis, and the inter-rater reliability of potential predictors was evaluated.

Results: The median age of the patients was 63 years; 78% were female. Redisplacement occurred in 39% of the cases. The AUROC for the Lafontaine criteria was 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.74). Multivariable logistic regression showed that age 56-74 years (odds ratio [OR] 3.92, 95% CI 1.82-9.16, p < 0.001) age > 74 years (OR 6.34, 95% CI 2.66-16.2, p < 0.001), associated ulna fracture (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.92-2.84, p = 0.10), and initial radial shortening > 3 mm (OR 5.78, 95% CI 3.11-11.2, p < 0.001) were the strongest predictive factors of fracture instability. These predictors demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability, making them suitable for clinical use. Updating the model with these risk factors resulted in an AUROC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.66-0.82).

Conclusions: The performance of the Lafontaine criteria in discriminating unstable distal radius fractures was unacceptable in our study cohort. The updated criteria using age group (< 56 years, 56-74 years, and > 74 years), associated ulnar fractures, and initial radial shortening > 3 mm was found to have moderate discrimination; however, further research is warranted to improve the prediction and measurement reliability of fracture instability.

Keywords: Conservative treatment; Distal radius fracture; Prediction rule; Unstable fractures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand (REC.65-453-11-1; 19 December 2022). The requirement for patient consent was waived due to the retrospective design of the study. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Proportion of redisplacement using the Lafontaine criteria (a) and the proposed new criteria (b) at each point. The blue bars represent stable cases, while the red bars represent cases with redisplacement. The number of cases (N) at each point is indicated at the top of each bar
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mean radiographic Stewart score of distal radius fracture alignment in initial radiography, post-reduction radiography, and follow-up radiography, grouped by their Lafontaine criteria score (a) and by the proposed new criteria (b)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Court-Brown CM, Biant L, Bugler KE, McQueen MM. Changing epidemiology of adult fractures in Scotland. Scott Med J. 2014;59(1):30–4. 10.1177/0036933013518148. - PubMed
    1. Rupp M, Walter N, Pfeifer C, Lang S, Kerschbaum M, Krutsch W, et al. The incidence of Fractures among the Adult Population of Germany–an analysis from 2009 through 2019. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2021;118(40):665–9. 10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0238. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Walenkamp MM, Vos LM, Strackee SD, Goslings JC, Schep NW. The unstable distal Radius fracture-how do we define it? A systematic review. J Wrist Surg. 2015;4(4):307–16. 10.1055/s-0035-1556860. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lafontaine M, Hardy D, Delince P. Stability assessment of distal radius fractures. Injury. 1989;20(4):208–10. 10.1016/0020-1383(89)90113-7. - PubMed
    1. LaMartina J, Jawa A, Stucken C, Merlin G, Tornetta P 3. Predicting alignment after closed reduction and casting of distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2015;40(5):934–9. 10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.01.023. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources