Nelson Benjamin A, Trentadue Taylor P, Somasundaram Vivek, Patel Priya, Capo John T, Rizzo Marco
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md.
Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Rochester, Minn.
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023 Jan 10;11(1):e4741. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004741. eCollection 2023 Jan.
The aim of this study is to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation versus closed reduction and percutaneous pinning of metacarpal fractures in relation to anatomic and surgical variables.
Electronic medical records at two institutions were reviewed for patients who underwent surgical intervention for metacarpal fractures. Data were collected from those who underwent reduction and internal fixation with either plates or Kirschner wires (K-wires). Inclusion criteria included minimum postoperative follow-up of 60 days and age 18 years or older. Exclusion criteria included insufficient radiographic data, previously attempted closed reduction with immobilization, pathologic fracture mechanism, history of previous trauma or surgery to the affected bone, and fixation technique other than plate or K-wire.
We reviewed data for patients treated over a 22-year time period. Ultimately, 81 metacarpal shaft and neck fractures in 60 patients met inclusion criteria. Among all metacarpal fractures, complications were present in 39 (48.1%) cases. There were no significant associations between complication prevalence and hardware type. Revision surgery was required in 11 (13.6%) patients; there were no significant associations between revision procedures and hardware type. Postoperatively, all patients with imaging data had radiograph follow-up to assess union status. There was no significant association between time to union and hardware type.
Outcomes showed no significant difference between plate and pin fixation for metacarpal shaft and neck fractures. These findings suggest that surgeons may have flexibility to decide on the type of operative intervention while considering patient-specific factors, such as the need for early mobilization.
本研究的目的是比较掌骨骨折切开复位内固定与闭合复位经皮穿针固定在解剖学和手术变量方面的临床和影像学结果。
回顾了两家机构中接受掌骨骨折手术干预患者的电子病历。数据收集自接受钢板或克氏针复位内固定的患者。纳入标准包括术后至少随访60天且年龄在18岁及以上。排除标准包括影像学数据不足、先前尝试过闭合复位并固定、病理性骨折机制、患骨既往有创伤或手术史以及除钢板或克氏针以外的固定技术。
我们回顾了22年期间接受治疗患者的数据。最终,60例患者的81例掌骨干和掌骨颈骨折符合纳入标准。在所有掌骨骨折中,39例(48.1%)出现并发症。并发症发生率与内固定类型之间无显著关联。11例(13.6%)患者需要进行翻修手术;翻修手术与内固定类型之间无显著关联。术后,所有有影像学数据的患者均进行X线片随访以评估愈合情况。骨折愈合时间与内固定类型之间无显著关联。
掌骨干和掌骨颈骨折的钢板固定和克氏针固定结果无显著差异。这些发现表明,外科医生在考虑患者特定因素(如早期活动的需求)时,可能有选择手术干预类型的灵活性。