Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Is fracture management merely a physical process? Exploring the psychological effects of internal and external fixation

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 19, Article number: 231 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Internal and external fixation are common surgical procedures for treating fractures. However, the impact of different surgical approaches (including internal and external fixations) on patients’ psychological status and Quality of Life (QoL) is rarely examined. Herein, we aimed to investigate the effects of internal and external fixation on anxiety, depression, insomnia, and overall mental and physical health in Distal Radius Fractures (DRF) patients.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study on 96 fracture patients who underwent internal fixation (57 patients) or external fixation (39 patients). The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire were used to assess the patients’ pain, anxiety, depression, sleep, and QoL before surgery and at seven days, one month, and three months post-surgery.

Results

The VAS scores were significantly lower in the Internal Fixation Group (IFG) than in the External Fixation Group (EFG) on the seventh day and one month postoperatively (P < 0.05). Although both groups showed no significant anxiety, depression, or insomnia before surgery (P > 0.05), the EFG showed significantly higher HADS-A, HADS-D, and AIS scores than the IFG at seven days and one and three months postoperatively (P < 0.05). Additionally, changes in HADS-A, HADS-D, and AIS scores were most significant at day seven post-surgery in the EFG (P < 0.05). Furthermore, no significant difference was found between the two groups in the average Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores before surgery (P > 0.05). However, both groups showed positive changes in PCS and MCS scores at postoperative day seven and one and three months postoperatively, with the IFG having significantly higher average PCS and MCS scores compared to the EFG (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Compared to external fixation, internal fixation did not significantly impact patients’ emotions regarding anxiety and depression in the early postoperative period, and physical and mental health recovery was better during the postoperative rehabilitation period. Furthermore, when there are no absolute indications, the impact on patients’ psychological well-being should be considered as one of the key factors in the treatment plan during surgical approach selection.

Introduction

In our clinic, we encountered a patient who said, “I don’t want to continue with the treatment anymore, please remove the frame, i’m becoming depressed.” This patient had been wearing an external fixation device for six months. This incident astonished us and made us realize we could have overlooked some critical aspects in our previous treatment approaches.

As common injuries, fracture-induced physical and psychological distress may impact patients’ Quality of Life (QoL) and daily functioning [1,2,3]. Treatment methods for fractures have notably progressed with continuous advancements in medical technology. Internal and external fixations are the two commonly used surgical approaches for stabilizing the fracture site and promoting healing and recovery [4,5,6,7,8]. However, besides the physical recovery process, the psychological well-being of fracture patients is the other important dimension that should be carefully considered. Recognizing the impact of psychological factors on health outcomes, the modern medical model has evolved from the traditional biomedical to the biopsychosocial model. The iatrogenic secondary psychological harm caused by medical interventions is one phenomenon that many practitioners have overlooked but constantly occurs. According to research [9,10,11], medical interventions such as surgery may have unintended effects on individuals’ psychological well-being and QoL besides promoting healing and alleviating pain. Specifically, some externally visible implants, such as external fixation devices, could potentially impact patients’ mental health [12, 13]. Furthermore, multiple studies [13,14,15,16] recently reported that patients who undergo external fixation surgery may experience adverse emotional reactions, including tension, worry, irritability, depression, and low self-esteem. In addition to affecting the patients’ recovery process, these adverse emotional reactions can prolong the rehabilitation period. Furthermore, a study [14] previously reported that psychological health may deteriorate to a moderate to severe extent in up to 50% of adolescents on Ilizarov fixators, potentially leading to suicidal tendencies. Presently, there are no systematic studies on the effects of internal fixation and external fixation surgeries on patients’ postoperative psychological health. Consequently, there is an urgent need to explore the impact of fixation methods on the postoperative psychological status of fracture patients.

This study aims to evaluate the impact of two surgical approaches on patients’ psychological health (regarding anxiety, depression, and insomnia) and QoL post-surgery. Specifically, we aim to establish a new perspective on the comprehensive treatment of fracture patients, offering them more hope and opportunities during recovery. Moreover, our study findings may guide healthcare professionals, allowing them to better recognize and address psychological challenges that fracture patients may face during treatment.

Materials and methods

Study design and participants

The population for this retrospective study consisted of 96 patients who underwent either external or internal fixation surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, between June 2021 and May 2023. Among them, 57 and 39 patients underwent internal fixation and external fixation surgeries, respectively. The 39 patients who underwent external fixation surgery used the ORTHOFIX wrist external fixation frame system. The ORTHOFIX system features a ball-and-socket joint slider mechanism that allows early functional exercises for patients while wearing the external fixator. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Patients aged 18–60 years; (2) Patients had closed, fresh, and unstable distal radius fractures (DRF) classified as AO/OTA types B2, B3, C1, and C2; (3) Patients who have already undergone internal or external fixation surgery in the hospital; (4) Patients in which none of the internal or external fixation devices had been removed at three months post-surgery; (5) Patients who can read traditional Chinese; and (6) Patients without physical limitations that could prevent them from completing the self-administered questionnaire. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) History of previous surgery on the affected limb; (2) Multiple and intra-articular fractures; (3) Patients with infection at the fracture site; (4) Presence of combined autoimmune diseases, malignancies, and so on; (5) Patients with pathological fractures; (6) Patients with other significant medical illnesses and psychiatric history; (7) Patients with incomplete clinical data; and (8) Withdrawal from the study or inability to complete the scale assessments.

Data collection

The Patient Information Form, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores [17], the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) [18, 19], the Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS) [20, 21], and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) [22,23,24] were used to collect patient mood data through face-to-face interviews. Review of patient records indicated that information on the study’s purpose and goals had been documented, and written informed consent was obtained accordingly. Patient information was collected at admission, on the day of surgery, and at discharge. The data were then compiled into a comprehensive patient information form. Furthermore, patients underwent other assessments upon admission. Specifically, the VAS, HADS, AIS, and SF-36 scales were completed at admission, on postoperative day seven, and at one and three months postoperatively.

Data collection tools

Patient information form

The questionnaire comprises 14 questions aimed at evaluating various patient characteristics, including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), marital status, education level, family location, cause of injury, side of hand, AO classification [25], interval from injury to surgery, operative time, incision length, operative blood loss, and length of hospital stay.

VAS

The VAS, which rates pain on a scale of 1 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain), with higher scores indicating more severe pain, was used to assess pain levels [17].

HADS

We used HADS to evaluate perioperative anxiety and depression. It is a patient-centered survey comprising seven items each for anxiety and depression, and respondents rate each item on a scale of 0 to 3. For each subscale total score, 0–7 indicates no symptoms, 8–10 suggests mild symptoms, and 11–21 shows the presence of anxiety or depression. Patients with a total score ≥ 11 were considered anxious or depressed [19]. The Chinese version of HADS has demonstrated good internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.85, 0.79, and 0.79 for the full scale, depression subscale, and anxiety subscale, respectively [18].

AIS

The AIS is a reliable tool for assessing subjective insomnia. It comprises eight items and each item is rated on a scale of 0 to 3, with 0 indicating no problem and 3 indicating a very serious problem. Participants were instructed to score each item positively if they had experienced the specified sleep difficulty ≥ three times per week in the past month. The total AIS score ranges between 0 and 24, with a score ≥ 6 indicating the presence of insomnia [21]. With a Cronbach’s α of 0.81, the AIS has been reported to have good internal consistency [20].

SF-36

The SF-36, which comprises eight subscales [physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health problems, bodily pain, general health, vitality (energy/fatigue), social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, and mental health], was used to assess QoL. The physical dimensions (the first four subscales) make up the Physical Component Summary (PCS), whereas the Mental Component Summary (MCS) is derived from the remaining dimensions [22]. Both the PCS and MCS scores are continuous variables ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a better health status. Specifically, very high PCS scores indicate no physical limitations, barriers, or reductions in well-being, and high energy levels, whereas very low scores indicate significant limitations (such as severe body pain or frequent fatigue) hindering self-care, physical, social, and role activities. Similarly, very high MCS scores indicate frequent positive emotions and a lack of psychological distress and limitations in ordinary social/role activities caused by emotional problems, whereas very low scores indicate significant social and role impairment due to frequent psychological distress and emotional issues [23]. The Chinese version of the SF-36 scale showed good internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.92, 0.90, and 0.85 for the overall scale, PCS subscale, and MCS subscale, respectively [24].

Data analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 25.0 (IBM Corp) and GraphPad Prism was used to generate graphs. All baseline characteristics were reported through descriptive statistics. Continuous variables were presented as Mean ± Standard Deviation (SD), while non-continuous variables were expressed as medians and Interquartile Ranges (IQL; P25 and P75). The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality, and comparisons between two groups were conducted using independent sample t-tests, while paired sample t-tests were used for within-group comparisons when the data were normally distributed. The rank sum test was employed in cases of non-normally distributed data. The chi-square or Fisher’s test was used to analyze the count data. Results or differences with P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Demographic and clinical characteristics

Table 1 shows patient distribution based on personal and clinical characteristics. Regarding general demographic information, patients in the Internal Fixation Group (IFG) were 33 males and 24 females with an average age of (37.77 ± 8.82) years and an average BMI of (22.27 ± 2.33) kg/m2. Forty-one (71.9%) were married, the majority resided in urban areas (73.7%), and 68.4% attained a high school education or higher. On the other hand, patients in the External Fixation Group (EFG) were 23 males and 16 females with an average age of (40.13 ± 9.08) years and a mean BMI of (22.97 ± 2.77) kg/m2. Twenty-one (53.8%) were married, most of them lived in urban areas (74.4%), and 66.7% attained a high school education or higher. Clinically, falls were the primary cause of fracture injury in the IFG (54.4%) and EFG (61.6%). Furthermore, compared to the IFG, operative time (69.30 (65, 75) vs. 39.62 (35, 45)), incision length (5.47 (5.0, 6.0) vs. 0.96 (0.5, 1.0)), and operative blood loss (35.70 (30.0, 42.5) vs. 21.28 (15.0, 30.0)) were significantly lower in the EFG (P < 0.001). Conversely, no statistically significant differences in AO classification, side of hand, time interval from injury to surgery, and length of hospital stay were found between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Table 1 Distribution of patients by personal and clinical characteristics
Full size table

Patients’ pain levels

We used the VAS pain scores to evaluate somatic pain in both patient groups (Table 2; Fig. 1). Our analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in VAS scores between the preoperative assessments (6.96 ± 1.18 vs. 6.95 ± 1.03, P = 0.945), and those in the third month postoperatively (0.95 ± 0.58 vs. 1.05 ± 0.56, P = 0.384). However, compared to the EFG, the IFG had significantly lower VAS scores on day seven post-surgery (2.02 ± 0.72 vs. 2.51 ± 0.68, P = 0.001) and the first month postoperatively (1.09 ± 0.66 vs. 1.38 ± 0.59, P = 0.027). Notably, both groups’ VAS scores decreased significantly over time, from the preoperative period to the third month postoperatively (P < 0.05).

Table 2 Measurements of pain for patients
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Distribution of mean and standard deviation of VAS for both groups over time. Notes VAS: The Visual Analog Scale; IFG: Internal Fixation Group; EFG: External Fixation Group; *: P < 0.05

Full size image

Patients’ anxiety levels

Both groups exhibited no significant anxiety before surgery (5.25 ± 1.27 vs. 5.18 ± 1.17, P = 0.796). However, compared to the IFG patients, the EFG patients demonstrated significantly higher anxiety levels at day seven (3.51 ± 0.60 vs. 7.31 ± 1.47), first month (2.51 ± 0.66 vs. 9.49 ± 2.29), and third month (2.53 ± 0.93 vs. 9.26 ± 2.84) postoperatively, (P < 0.001). Notably, the EFG patients had the highest anxiety scores at the first month post-surgery (Table 3). Furthermore, there was a notable increase in the mean Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A) scores in the EFG from the preoperative period to the first month postoperatively, whereas those in the IFG exhibited a significant decrease (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found in the mean HADS-A scores between the two groups from the first to the third month postoperatively (P > 0.05) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Distribution of mean and standard deviation of HADS-A for both groups over time. Notes HADS-A: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety; IFG: Internal Fixation Group; EFG: External Fixation Group; *: P < 0.05

Full size image

Patients’ depression levels

No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in the mean Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression (HADS-D) scores when assessing the patients’ depression severity during the preoperative period (4.28 ± 1.30 vs. 4.33 ± 1.38, P = 0.855). However, the mean HADS-D scores of the EFG patients were notably higher than those of the IFG patients at day seven post-surgery (6.69 ± 2.42 vs. 3.19 ± 0.74, P < 0.001), as well as first (8.87 ± 1.64 vs. 2.39 ± 0.59, P < 0.001 and third months postoperatively (8.82 ± 2.39 vs. 2.25 ± 0.74, P < 0.001) (Table 3), with the highest HADS-D scores observed in the EFG at the first month after surgery (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Distribution of mean and standard deviation of HADS-D for both groups over time. Notes HADS-D: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression; IFG: Internal Fixation Group; EFG, External Fixation Group; *: P < 0.05

Full size image

Patients’ sleep levels

No statistically significant difference was found in the total AIS scores between the two groups before surgery (3.03 ± 0.67 vs. 3.02 ± 0.72, P = 0.956). However, compared to the IFG, the total AIS scores in the EFG were markedly higher at day seven (11.33 ± 3.14 vs. 2.82 ± 0.66, P < 0.001), and the first (14.23 ± 2.31 vs. 2.74 ± 0.64, P < 0.001) and third (13.95 ± 1.99 vs. 2.75 ± 0.74, P < 0.001) months post-surgery, with these differences being statistically significant. Furthermore, the EFG had the most significant increase in total AIS scores at day seven postoperatively and the highest total AIS score at the first month post-surgery (Table 3; Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Distribution of mean and standard deviation of AIS for both groups over time. Notes AIS: Athens Insomnia Scale; IFG: Internal Fixation Group; EFG, External Fixation Group; *: P < 0.05

Full size image

Patients’ PCS levels

We examined the average PCS scores of the two patient groups and found that although the mean PCS scores of both groups were higher in the preoperative period, there was no significant difference between them (80.11 ± 8.34 vs. 79.17 ± 10.92, P = 0.633). However, compared to the EFG patients, the mean PCS score was notably higher in the IFG patients at day seven (68.73 ± 17.00 vs. 58.11 ± 20.05, P = 0.006), and the first (76.29 ± 10.18 vs. 60.83 ± 14.16, P < 0.001), and third (79.12 ± 7.77 vs. 67.15 ± 12.50, P < 0.001) months postoperatively (Table 3; Fig. 5). Evidently, there was a positive change in the mean PCS score in both patient groups post-surgery.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Distribution of mean and standard deviation of PCS for both groups over time. Notes PCS: Physical Component Summary; IFG: Internal Fixation Group; EFG, External Fixation Group; *: P < 0.05

Full size image

Patients’ MCS levels

Consistent with the mean PCS score results, no statistically significant difference was found in the mean MCS scores of the two patient groups in the preoperative period (71.33 ± 11.85 vs. 72.79 ± 11.13, P = 0.547). However, the mean MCS scores of the IFG were significantly higher than those of the EFG at the seventh day (66.85 ± 11.76 vs. 55.23 ± 25.58, P = 0.011) and the first (67.82 ± 7.88 vs. 54.35 ± 16.92, P < 0.001) and third months postoperatively (71.84 ± 8.32 vs. 61.93 ± 15.64, P = 0.001). Additionally, although the mean MCS score of the EFG patients was the lowest at the first month post-surgery, we observed a positive change in the overall trend of MCS scores in both patient groups throughout the postoperative period (Table 3; Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Distribution of mean and standard deviation of MCS for both groups over time. Notes MCS: Mental Component Summary; IFG: Internal Fixation Group; EFG, External Fixation Group; *: P < 0.05

Full size image
Table 3 Measurements of anxiety, depression, sleep, mental and physical component for patients
Full size table

Discussion

Most orthopedic surgeons are currently focused on the physical aspect of healing, which is the primary concern for fracture patients [26,27,28]. On the other hand, the psychological dimension is frequently overlooked in the realm of fracture surgery. This is particularly true regarding surgical approach selection, which often entails choosing between internal fixation and external fixation operations. Herein, we clinically found that in DRF patients, the EFG had shorter operation times, smaller incision lengths, and less intraoperative blood loss than the IFG. However, regarding VAS pain scores, the IFG showed more significant pain reduction than the EFG at seven days and one-month post-surgery. There was no difference between the two methods in healing rates [26]. Conversely, significant variations were found in the patients’ long-term psychological states postoperatively, potentially due to the differing surgical approaches. Specifically, compared to the IFG patients, the EFG patients were more prone to negative emotions such as anxiety and depression, as well as insomnia at seven days, one month, and three months postoperatively. Additionally, while there were significant differences in PCS and MCS scores between the two groups at seven days, one month, and three months postoperatively, both groups showed positive change over time.

Internal and external fixation are both excellent therapeutic modalities, especially after decades of development in fracture treatment. Each has its advantages based on different indications. External fixation is crucial for open fractures, given its simplicity, flexibility, and minimal tissue damage. It has been widely used in clinical practice and has particularly demonstrated benefits in treating limb fractures with poor soft tissue conditions [29]. Moreover, external fixation significantly reduces complications such as infections as well as skin and soft tissue necrosis that could result from open reduction internal fixation, making it indispensable in limb lengthening procedures and the treatment of limb fractures with severe soft tissue injury and infection [30]. The intersection of indications for both methods has gradually expanded with continuous advancements in orthopedic medical concepts (external and internal fixations), especially with the introduction of the “Biological Osteosynthesis (BO)” principle [31, 32], leading to more controversies related to surgical method selection. However, when treating DRF, we believe that the choice of fixation method should still be based on the specific circumstances of the fracture. When there is significant shortening of the radius and partial metaphyseal bone loss or comminution, or in cases of compressive fractures, external fixation with appropriate traction to maintain or restore the height of the radius can be employed. This approach is particularly suitable for middle-aged and elderly patients, as it can avoid the need for a second surgery that might be required with internal fixation. Conversely, internal fixation is generally preferred when there is no significant shortening of the radius. Previous research [33,34,35] has often focused on exploring the physiological treatment effects while overlooking the psychological aspects. Offering a new angle to elucidate the respective impacts on patient emotions postoperatively, this study evaluates the psychological status of patients who have undergone internal and external fixation over multiple periods. Besides offering orthopedic surgeons a secondary basis for surgical method selection beyond absolute indications, this analysis provides a reference for the optimal timing of psychological interventions when patients experience adverse emotions.

According to previous research [36,37,38,39], external fixation devices can effectively control the position and stability of fractures, thereby promoting healing. However, these external fixators must often be maintained on the skin for some time, which may cause discomfort and pain, as well as a high probability of pin tract infections [40, 41], consequently leading to psychological discomfort for the patients. Furthermore, patients may feel unattractive due to external fixators, affecting their self-esteem, sleep, and psychological state [13, 42, 43]. Our results also indicate that the EFG patients are more likely to experience negative emotional reactions such as anxiety, worry, irritability, depression, and feelings of inferiority in the first three months post-surgery. Follow-up with a large patient cohort revealed that these negative emotional reactions are mainly associated with various factors related to the inconvenience and discomfort of wearing the external fixator. Additionally, practical concerns such as restricted mobility, difficulty bathing and dressing, and judgmental looks from others can further exacerbate the negative emotions in trauma patients, with severe cases even leading to suicidal thoughts [14, 15]. Moreover, patients’ sleep quality (as manifested by easy awakenings at night, poor nighttime sleep quality, and shortened total sleep time) could be affected [44]. During the interviews, we observed more pronounced anxiety, depression, and insomnia in EFG patients who were the primary source of family income and experienced financial difficulties. This area of concern will require additional research in the future. On the other hand, patients who underwent internal fixation surgery did not show significant anxiety, depression, or insomnia. This finding may be because internal fixation patients experienced less pain and discomfort, resulting in less significant negative psychological impacts compared to external fixation patients [45]. Additionally, patient acceptance is an important aspect. Engaging in manageable activities during postoperative recovery is crucial for the patients’ psychological adjustment. Internal fixation patients can participate in a more diverse range of social activities post-surgery, to some extent mitigating the impact of the operation on their QoL and alleviating anxiety and depression [45, 46].

A period of emotional accumulation is often required for psychological changes. From a temporal perspective, patients perceive the most significant increase in indicators such as HADS and AIS to occur at seven days postoperatively compared to preoperatively. Although patients are comprehensively informed about the surgical procedure beforehand, witnessing the Schanz screws directly connected to the body surface is initially difficult to accept. Therefore, some patients may experience stress and anxiety, and most patients may postoperatively experience sleep disturbances due to the subconscious protection of the external fixation frame. Sleep disturbances can set off a vicious cycle of low mood and worrying about the illness.

Patients exhibit the most prominent signs of anxiety, depression, and insomnia at one month postoperatively. This indicates that clinical psychological interventions are most effective within the first month after fracture surgery. If circumstances allow, psychological counseling should be initiated immediately within the first week post-surgery when the HADS and AIS indicators rise the fastest. At this point, healthcare professionals could provide appropriate psychological support and counseling, enhancing the patients’ self-awareness and cognitive abilities, which in turn reduces their worries, fears, and feelings of depression, helping them to better adapt to the postoperative recovery process [47]. Moreover, Jacobs et al. found a significant correlation between psychological factors and the body’s recovery process [48]. In this regard, providing timely psychological treatment to patients not only holds social significance but also contributes to functional recovery. Certain external factors (including the prolonged wearing of external fixation devices and postoperative pain) gradually diminish in their impact on some patients after the first month postoperatively, leading to changes in the patients’ psychological state and sleep patterns. As a result, some patients could return to the hospital to get the external fixation devices loosened and may also gain confidence from their satisfactory recovery. The loosening of external fixation devices one month post-surgery involves adjusting the bilateral ball heads and the central connecting slide bar of the ORTHOFIX external frame. The aim is to facilitate early functional exercises, maintain the height of the radius, and prevent joint stiffness. Interestingly, the support provided by external fixation during these early exercises can lead to improved functional activity. For most patients with distal radial fractures, the external fixator is removed 1–2 months after surgery. However, there is a subset of patients whose fractures have not yet fully healed. These fractures, such as those at the distal radial metaphysis and the radial diaphyseal transition zone, tend to heal more slowly. For these patients, the time for removal of the fixator can be extended to three months. This extension is predicated on ensuring that patients carry out functional exercises. These patients require psychological counseling during follow-up visits. However, this psychological improvement may vary to some extent based on factors such as ethnicity, region, and age groups included herein.

Primarily based on patients’ subjective opinions, QoL measurement could be the most crucial approach for assessing their postoperative physical and psychological functional recovery [49]. Herein, we found that the IFG patients had higher PCS and MCS scores at seven days, one month, and three months postoperatively compared to the EFG patients. Specifically, the IFG patients had significantly higher scores in items related to moderate activities, shopping, bathing and dressing oneself, limitations in desired activities, and increased difficulty in completing tasks in the PCS section. They also had significantly higher scores in items related to reduced work hours due to emotional reasons, impact on normal interactions with family and friends due to emotional reasons, feeling down, and feeling exhausted in the MCS section. Furthermore, despite having the greatest increase in the PCS and MCS scores between the seventh day and the first month postoperatively, the EFG exhibited lower PCS and MCS scores at three months compared to preoperative levels. Other studies on postoperative QoL found that increases in PCS and MCS scores mostly occur within the first six months postoperatively [50, 51]. Based on stable reduction, both internal and external fixation could result in satisfactory fracture recovery in the short term postoperatively [4,5,6,7,8]. However, the time it takes for patients to return to their previous functional status in society varies. In addition to psychological factors, this discrepancy could be influenced by the practical impact of daily behavioral hindrances of wearing external fixation devices. Furthermore, patients wearing external fixation devices could subjectively feel they can still not engage in daily activities and perform regular duties.

According to previous research [52,53,54] patients with higher postoperative QoL tend to have higher happiness indices, are less susceptible to anxiety, depression, and insomnia, and are better positioned for physiological recovery, as well as better interpersonal and social interactions. External fixation can negatively impact patients’ postoperative QoL, leading to an increased incidence of low mood, fatigue, melancholy, and social limitations due to external scrutiny (such as reluctance to communicate with friends and family and reduced social activities). The duration of wearing an external fixator generally falls within an acceptable range for most DRF patients. However, compared to internal fixation, statistically significant negative emotional differences have been observed in external fixation. Special attention should be paid to monitoring emotional changes in patients requiring long-term external fixation procedures, such as bone lengthening [55]. An external fixator may lead to difficulties in daily activities, such as mobility issues and grooming. Therefore, healthcare professionals should offer practical assistance and guidance on dressing and other aspects of daily living to help patients better adapt to wearing an external fixator and adjust to their new life situation [56]. Moreover, guiding patients who have undergone external fixation surgery to actively participate in rehabilitation activities could help them better adapt to wearing the external fixator, boost their confidence and self-esteem, and reduce the incidence of negative emotions.

Our study primarily aimed to provide new insights into the selection of surgical procedures for fracture patients from multiple dimensions, including psychological status, sleep, and QoL. In conclusion, compared to external fixation surgery, internal fixation surgery has a smaller impact on the emotional state, sleep, and QoL of fracture patients during postoperative recovery. This outcome is mostly due to subjective acceptance of long-term wearing of external fixation devices, restricted daily activities, and longer recovery time. Notably, the above conclusion does not mean internal fixation is superior to external fixation. The two approaches have different indications, and external fixation has its irreplaceable advantages. It is crucial to recognize that the choice between external fixation and internal fixation often hinges on the specific characteristics and requirements of the fracture type, such as open versus closed fractures. This distinction in indications suggests a potential variability in the applicability of these treatments, which could influence the study’s outcomes. To address this, our analysis carefully considers the fracture types and conditions across patient groups to minimize potential biases. However, orthopedic surgeons must seriously consider the potential psychological impact of external fixation on patients’ post-surgery. The results of a randomized controlled trial led by the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC) suggest that even in the case of severe open tibial fractures, the routine use of modern external ring fixation for treatment should be avoided. Patients with poor psychological baselines may require timely psychological intervention if negative emotions worsen within the first week following external fixation treatment [57]. Notably, internal fixation surgery may be a better choice when both internal and external fixation can be performed on a patient with a fragile psychological health status. In such cases, surgical outcomes and risks, as well as individual patient factors, should remain the primary considerations. Overall, our study findings provide insight into the psychological impact of different fixation procedures on fracture patients. Doctors should be aware of the potential external fixation-induced adverse psychological events and provide patients with timely intervention and the best treatment plan possible.

This study has certain limitations. First, the sample size was relatively small, necessitating multi-center studies with larger sample sizes to better generalize the findings in the future. Second, recall bias was inevitable despite using well-validated questionnaires such as HADS and SF-36. Third, the overall patient compliance decreased after the removal of the implant despite our efforts to conduct long-term patient follow-ups at six months postoperatively and beyond, making it difficult to assess the patients’ psychological status over a longer period. Based on these drawbacks, future research could explore the impact of internal fixation and external fixation surgeries on the psychological status of patients with various types of fractures, as well as different age and gender groups, and consider longer follow-up periods.

Conclusion

This study found that in the early postoperative period, internal fixation surgery did not have a significant effect on negative emotions such as anxiety and depression compared to external fixation surgery, and patients showed better physical and psychological recovery during the postoperative rehabilitation period. In cases without absolute indications, the selection of a surgical approach should factor in its impact on patients’ psychological well-being as part of the treatment plan. Furthermore, individuals who undergo external fixation treatment and exhibit significant anxiety and depression should receive prompt psychological counseling in the early stages to mitigate the risk of developing severe anxiety and depression disorders.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

DRF:

Distal Radius Fractures

QoL:

Quality of Life

VAS:

Visual Analog Scale

HADS:

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

AIS:

Athens Insomnia Scale

SF-36:

Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36

IFG:

Internal Fixation Group

EFG:

External Fixation Group

PCS:

Physical Component Summary

MCS:

Mental Component Summary

BMI:

Body Mass Index

SD:

Standard Deviation

IQL:

Interquartile Ranges

HADS-A:

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety

HADS-D:

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression

BO:

Biological Osteosynthesis

METRC:

Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium

References

  1. van Leerdam RH, Huizing F, Termaat F, Kleinveld S, Rhemrev SJ, Krijnen P, Schipper IB. Patient-reported outcomes after a distal radius fracture in adults: a 3–4 years follow-up. Acta Orthop. 2019;90(2):129–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. van der Vliet QMJ, Sweet AAR, Bhashyam AR, Ferree S, van Heijl M, Houwert RM, Leenen LPH, Hietbrink F. Polytrauma and high-energy injury mechanisms are associated with worse patient-reported outcomes after distal radius fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019;477(10):2267–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Chokotho L, Wu HH, Shearer D, Lau BC, Mkandawire N, Gjertsen JE, Hallan G, Young S. Outcome at 1 year in patients with femoral shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nailing or skeletal traction in a low-income country: a prospective observational study of 187 patients in Malawi. Acta Orthop. 2020;91(6):724–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ma C, Deng Q, Pu H, Cheng X, Kan Y, Yang J, Yusufu A, Cao L. External fixation is more suitable for intra-articular fractures of the distal radius in elderly patients. Bone Res. 2016;4:16017.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Yoon AP, Wang Y, Wang L, Chung KC. And the WG: what are the tradeoffs in outcomes after casting versus surgery for closed extraarticular distal radius fractures in older patients? A statistical learning model. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021;479(12):2691–700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Oijen GW, Van Lieshout EMM, Reijnders MRL, Appalsamy A, Hagenaars T, Verhofstad MHJ. Treatment options in extra-articular distal radius fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022;48(6):4333–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. He Y, Liu Q, Gao B, Tian H. Efficacy of open reduction plate fixation versus external fixation in the treatment of distal radius type C fracture. Asian J Surg. 2023;46(9):3858–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jayaram M, Wood SM, Kane RL, Yang LY, Chung KC. Association of open reduction and internal fixation with volar locking plate for distal radius fractures with patient-reported outcomes in older adults: a network meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(6):e2318715.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Chung KC, Kotsis SV, Burns PB, Burke FD, Wilgis EFS, Fox DA, Kim HM. Seven-year outcomes of the silicone arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis prospective cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017;69(7):973–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hafez M, Nicolaou N, Offiah A, Offorha B, Giles S, Madan S, Fernandes JA. Quality of life of children during distraction osteogenesis: a comparison between intramedullary magnetic lengthening nails and external fixators. Int Orthop. 2022;46(6):1367–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sarkies MN, Testa L, Carrigan A, Roberts N, Gray R, Sherrington C, Mitchell R, Close JCT, McDougall C, Sheehan K. Perioperative interventions to improve early mobilisation and physical function after hip fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing 2023, 52(8).

  12. Garner MR, Thacher RR, Ni A, Berkes MB, Lorich DG. Elective removal of implants after open reduction and internal fixation of Tibial Plateau fractures improves clinical outcomes. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135(11):1491–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Abulaiti A, Yilihamu Y, Yasheng T, Alike Y, Yusufu A. The psychological impact of external fixation using the Ilizarov or Orthofix LRS method to treat tibial osteomyelitis with a bone defect. Injury. 2017;48(12):2842–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Martin L, Farrell M, Lambrenos K, Nayagam D. Living with the Ilizarov frame: adolescent perceptions. J Adv Nurs. 2003;43(5):478–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Buyukyilmaz F, Sendir M, Salmond S. Evaluation of body image and self-esteem in patients with external fixation devices: a Turkish perspective. Orthop Nurs. 2009;28(4):169–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang C, Ma T, Li Z, Wang Q, Li Z, Zhang K, Huang Q. A modified hybrid transport technique combined with a retrograde tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis nail for the management of distal tibial periarticular osteomyelitis and associated defects. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023;18(1):259.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Heller GZ, Manuguerra M, Chow R. How to analyze the visual analogue scale:myths, truths and clinical relevance. Scand J Pain. 2016;13:67–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang W, Chair SY, Thompson DR, Twinn SF. A psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the hospital anxiety and Depression Scale in patients with coronary heart disease. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18(17):2436–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yu B, Zhang J, Pan J, Wang Y, Chen Y, Zhao W, Wu D. Psychological and functional comparison between minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis. Orthop Surg. 2021;13(4):1213–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Chung KF, Kan KK, Yeung WF. Assessing insomnia in adolescents: comparison of Insomnia Severity Index, Athens Insomnia Scale and Sleep Quality Index. Sleep Med. 2011;12(5):463–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Li XR, Zhang WH, Williams JP, Li T, Yuan JH, Du Y, Liu JD, Wu Z, Xiao ZY, Zhang R, et al. A multicenter survey of perioperative anxiety in China: pre- and postoperative associations. J Psychosom Res. 2021;147:110528.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sampogna F, Fania L, Mastroeni S, Ciccone D, Panebianco A, Abeni D. Age-specific physical and mental health status in Italian patients with hidradenitis suppurativa: a comparison with the general population. Arch Dermatol Res. 2021;313(1):41–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cigerci Y, Yaman F, Cekirdekci A, Kucuk I, Ayva E, Kisacik OG. Does the technique used in coronary artery bypass graft surgery affect patients’ anxiety, depression, mental and physical health? First 3-month outcomes. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2022;58(2):518–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sun SPLJ, Zhang SX. Reliability and validity of the mos item short form health survey in evaluating quality of life forpatients with benign anorectal diseases. J Color Anal Surg. 2019;25(25):497–505512.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Muller MENS, Koch P, Schatzker J. The Comprehensive classification of fractures of Long bones. Springer-; 1990.

  26. Vannabouathong C, Hussain N, Guerra-Farfan E, Bhandari M. Interventions for distal Radius fractures: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized trials. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019;27(13):e596–e605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chung KC, Kim HM, Malay S, Shauver MJ, Wrist RI, Surgical Trial G. The wrist and Radius Injury Surgical Trial: 12-Month outcomes from a Multicenter International Randomized Clinical Trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(6):1054e–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Ludvigsen T, Matre K, Gudmundsdottir RS, Krukhaug Y, Dybvik EH, Fevang JM. Surgical Treatment of Distal Radial fractures with external fixation Versus Volar Locking plate: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103(5):405–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tunali O, Saglam Y, Balci HI, Kochai A, Sahbaz NA, Sayin OA, Yazicioglu O. Gustilo type IIIC open tibia fractures with vascular repair: minimum 2-year follow-up. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2017;43(4):505–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Andruszkow H, Pfeifer R, Horst K, Hildebrand F, Pape HC. External fixation in the elderly. Injury. 2015;46(Suppl 3):7–S12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Frigg R, Ulrich D. [Innovative implants -- a prerequisite for biological osteosynthesis]. Ther Umsch. 2003;60(12):723–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhang YZ. Minimally invasive reduction and fixation in Orthopedic Trauma. Chin Med J (Engl). 2016;129(21):2521–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Landgren M, Jerrhag D, Tagil M, Kopylov P, Geijer M, Abramo A. External or internal fixation in the treatment of non-reducible distal radial fractures? Acta Orthop. 2011;82(5):610–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Wilcke MK, Abbaszadegan H, Adolphson PY. Wrist function recovers more rapidly after volar locked plating than after external fixation but the outcomes are similar after 1 year. Acta Orthop. 2011;82(1):76–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Xie X, Xie X, Qin H, Shen L, Zhang C. Comparison of internal and external fixation of distal radius fractures. Acta Orthop. 2013;84(3):286–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Bliven EK, Greinwald M, Hackl S, Augat P. External fixation of the lower extremities: biomechanical perspective and recent innovations. Injury. 2019;50(Suppl 1):10–S17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Abdul Wahab AH, Wui NB, Abdul Kadir MR, Ramlee MH. Biomechanical evaluation of three different configurations of external fixators for treating distal third tibia fracture: Finite element analysis in axial, bending and torsion load. Comput Biol Med. 2020;127:104062.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Encinas-Ullan CA, Martinez-Diez JM, Rodriguez-Merchan EC. The use of external fixation in the emergency department: applications, common errors, complications and their treatment. EFORT Open Rev. 2020;5(4):204–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Kucukguven A, Vargel I, Mavili E. A novel ultrasound-guided minimally invasive technique for the treatment of extracapsular condylar fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2022;50(6):473–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kazmers NH, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Prevention of pin site infection in external fixation: a review of the literature. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2016;11(2):75–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Fragomen AT, Miller AO, Brause BD, Goldman V, Rozbruch SR. Prophylactic postoperative antibiotics may not reduce pin site infections after external fixation. HSS J. 2017;13(2):165–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Rius-Zavala MM, Orellana-Reta CA, Fuentes-Figueroa S, Nieva-Lopez MG. [Psychological evaluation in patients treated with external fixator]. Acta Ortop Mex. 2017;31(6):287–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Siddiqui AA, Siddiqui F, Bashar M, Adeel M, Rajput IM, Katto MS. Impact of Ilizarov fixation technique on the Limb functionality and self-esteem of patients with unilateral tibial fractures. Cureus. 2019;11(10):e5923.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. McKeown R, Kearney RS, Liew ZH, Ellard DR. Patient experiences of an ankle fracture and the most important factors in their recovery: a qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(2):e033539.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Safdari M, Koohestani MM. Comparing the effect of volar plate fixators and external fixators on outcome of patients with intra-articular distal radius fractures: a clinical trial. Electron Physician. 2015;7(2):1085–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Oguzkaya S, Misir A, Kizkapan TB, Eken G, Ozcamdalli M, Basilgan S. A comparison of clinical, radiological, and quality-of-life outcomes of double-plate internal and Ilizarov external fixations for Schatzker type 5 and 6 tibia plateau fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022;48(2):1409–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Clark M, Chur-Hansen A, Mikocka-Walus A. Systematic review with meta-analysis: current and emerging models of preoperative psychological preparation for individuals undergoing stoma surgery. J Psychosom Res. 2023;168:111211.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Jacobs CA, Burnham JM, Jochimsen KN, Molina Dt, Hamilton DA, Duncan ST. Preoperative symptoms in Femoroacetabular Impingement patients are more related to Mental Health scores than the severity of Labral Tear or Magnitude of Bony Deformity. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(12):3603–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mathews CS, Davitt J, Coetzee JC, Shofer J, Norvell DC, Ledoux WR, Sangeorzan BJ. Prospective Multicenter Study of Salto Talaris Ankle Arthroplasty with Minimum 4-Year Follow-Up. Foot Ankle Int 2023:10711007231203678.

  50. Golec P, Depukat P, Rutowicz B, Walocha E, Mizia E, Pelka P, Kopacz P, Tomaszewski KA, Walocha J. Main health-related quality-of-life issues in patients after a distal radius fracture. Folia Med Cracov. 2015;55(2):23–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Klopfer T, Hemmann P, Rupprecht V, Stuby F, Stockle U, Meder A. Outcome analysis of distal Radius fracture with Orthosis Versus cast immobilization after Palmar plate osteosynthesis: a randomized controlled study. J Pers Med 2023, 13(1).

  52. Romanzini AE, Pereira MDG, Guilherme C, Cologna AJ, Carvalho EC. Predictors of well-being and quality of life in men who underwent radical prostatectomy: longitudinal study1. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2018;26:e3031.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Bakhtiar Y, Pratama Brilliantika S, Bunyamin J, Arifin MT, Hardian H, Bintoro AC, Muttaqin Z. Postoperative evaluation of the quality of life, Depression, and anxiety of temporal lobe Epilepsy Cohort: a single Institute experience in Indonesia. Front Neurol. 2021;12:708064.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhang T, Qi X. Enhanced Nursing Care for Improving the Self-Efficacy & Health-Related Quality of Life in patients with a urostomy. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2023;16:297–308.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Feng D, Zhang Y, Jia H, Xu G, Wu W, Yang F, Ding J, Li D, Wang K, Luo Y, et al. Complications analysis of Ilizarov bone transport technique in the treatment of tibial bone defects-a retrospective study of 199 cases. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023;24(1):864.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Xing J, Sun N, Li L, Lv D, Geng S, Li Y. Factors influencing self-care in outpatients with external fixation in China. J Int Med Res. 2020;48(2):300060520902603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Major Extremity Trauma Research C. Modern External Ring fixation Versus Internal fixation for treatment of severe Open Tibial fractures: a Randomized Clinical Trial (FIXIT Study). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022;104(12):1061–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was funded by National Clinical Research Center for Orthopedics Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation Innovation Fund (2021-NCRC-CXJJ-ZH-29), the State Key Laboratory of Pathogenesis, Prevention, Treatment of Central Asian High Incidence Diseases Fund (SKL-HIDCA-2022-JH3), Key Research and Development Special Project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region(2022B03013-6), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (82260425).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Qiyu Jia and Zhenlei Peng contributed equally to this study and share first authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

    Qiyu Jia, Zengru Xie & Chuang Ma

  2. Xinjiang Clinical Research Center for Mental Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

    Zhenlei Peng & Shijie Jiang

  3. Nanjing Brain Hospital, Clinical Teaching Hospital of Medical School, Child Mental Health Research Center, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China

    Anqi Huang

  4. Department of Orthopedics, Beijing Aerospace General Hospital, Beijing, China

    Wen Zhao

  5. Department of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

    Wen Zhao

Authors
  1. Qiyu Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhenlei Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anqi Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shijie Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wen Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zengru Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chuang Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

QYJ: Conducted the study. Collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data. Wrote the manuscript. ZLP: Designed the study. Collected and interpreted the data. Edited the manuscript. AQH and SJJ: Collected and interpreted the data. WZ: Planned the project. Interpreted the data. CM and ZRX: Planned the project. Reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wen Zhao, Zengru Xie or Chuang Ma.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University and was conducted in compliance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration guidelines. All the patients signed written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jia, Q., Peng, Z., Huang, A. et al. Is fracture management merely a physical process? Exploring the psychological effects of internal and external fixation. J Orthop Surg Res 19, 231 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04655-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04655-6

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X