Table 1: Osteoarticular allograft reconstructions at distal radius: comparison of results.

Patients Followup (months)NonunionInfectionFractureInstabilityFailedSurvivalFlex/ext [°]Pron/sup [°]

Presented results532 (3,7; 121)2 (40%)0000100% at 3 years38/6077/76,7

Scoccianti et al. [19]1758,9 (28; 119)2 (11,8%)02 (11,8%)4 (23,5%)194,1% at 4,9 years56/5880/84

Szabo et al. [20]9100 (39; 219)01 (11%)1 (11%)00100% at 3,5 years26/5280/67

Bianchi et al. [21]1252 (26; 145)1 (8,3%)007 (58,3%)191,7% at 4,3 years51/37n.s.

Kocher et al. [22]24130,8 (25; 268)006 (25%)0866% at 10,9 years36/2172/58

Asavamongkolkul et al. [17]*852,7 (41,5; 90,9)2 (25%)01 (12,5%)0187,5% at 4,4 years35/4050/70

Vander Griend and Funderburk [5]*13600111n.s.n.s.

Gitelis et al. [23]*480,5 (43; 105)0001 (25%)0100% at 5 years39/51n.s.

Harness and Mankin [24]*152282 (13,3%)0n.s.2 (13,3%)473,3 at 19 yearsn.s.n.s.

van Isacker et al. [25]*2149.50000150% at 12,5 yearsn.s.n.s.

Range and percentages in brackets.
Also other reconstruction methods than osteoarticular allografts had been used in these series.
n.s.: not specified.