DelPrete Cristina R, Chao John, Varghese Bobby B, Greenberg Patricia, Iyer Hari, Shah Ajul
Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Division of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, USA.
Hand (N Y). 2024 Feb 27:15589447241232094. doi: 10.1177/15589447241232094.
Metacarpal fractures are common injuries with multiple options for fixation. Our purpose was to compare outcomes in metacarpal fractures treated with intramedullary screw fixation (IMF), Kirschner wires (K-wires), or plating.
A systematic literature review using the MEDLINE database was performed for studies investigating metacarpal fractures treated with IMF, plating, or K-wires. We identified 34 studies (9 IMF, 8 plating, 17 K-wires). A meta-analysis using both mixed and fixed effects models was performed. Outcome measures included mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores, total active motion (TAM), grip strength, time to radiographic healing, and rates of infection and reoperation.
Patients with IMF had significantly lower DASH scores (0.6 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-1.0]) compared with K-wires (7.4 [4.8-9.9]) and plating (9.8 [5.3-14.3]). Intramedullary screw fixation also had significantly lower rates of reoperation (4%, [2%-7%]), compared with K-wires (11% [7%-16%]) and plating (11% [0.07-0.17]). Grip strength was significantly higher in IMF (104.4% [97.0-111.8]) compared with K-wires (88.5%, [88.3-88.7]) and plating (90.3%, [85.4-95.2]). Mean odds ratio time was similar between IMF (21.0 minutes [10.4-31.6]) and K-wires (20.8 minutes [14.0-27.6]), but both were shorter compared with plating (52.6 minutes [33.1-72.1]). There were no statistically significant differences in time to radiographic healing, TAM, or rates of reoperation or infection.
This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of metacarpal fixation with IMF, K-wires, or plating. Intramedullary screw fixation provided statistically significant lower DASH scores, higher grip strength, and lower rates of reoperation, suggesting that it is a comparable method of fixation to K-wires and plating for metacarpal fractures.
掌骨骨折是常见损伤,有多种固定选择。我们的目的是比较髓内螺钉固定(IMF)、克氏针(K 针)或钢板固定治疗掌骨骨折的疗效。
使用 MEDLINE 数据库进行系统文献综述,以查找研究 IMF、钢板或 K 针治疗掌骨骨折的研究。我们确定了 34 项研究(9 项关于 IMF,8 项关于钢板,17 项关于 K 针)。使用混合效应模型和固定效应模型进行荟萃分析。结局指标包括手臂、肩部和手部功能障碍(DASH)平均评分、总主动活动度(TAM)、握力、影像学愈合时间以及感染和再次手术率。
与 K 针(7.4 [4.8 - 9.9])和钢板(9.8 [5.3 - 14.3])相比,接受 IMF 治疗的患者 DASH 评分显著更低(0.6 [95%置信区间[CI],0.2 - 1.0])。与 K 针(11% [7% - 16%])和钢板(11% [0.07 - 0.17])相比,髓内螺钉固定的再次手术率也显著更低(4%,[2% - 7%])。与 K 针(88.5%,[88.3 - 88.7])和钢板(90.3%,[85.4 - 95.2])相比,IMF 组的握力显著更高(104.4% [97.0 - 111.8])。IMF(21.0 分钟[10.4 - 31.6])和 K 针(20.8 分钟[14.0 - 27.6])的平均手术时间相似,但两者均比钢板固定(52.6 分钟[33.1 - 72.1])短。在影像学愈合时间、TAM、再次手术率或感染率方面,差异无统计学意义。
这项荟萃分析比较了 IMF、K 针或钢板固定治疗掌骨骨折的疗效。髓内螺钉固定在统计学上具有显著更低的 DASH 评分、更高的握力和更低的再次手术率,表明它是一种与 K 针和钢板固定治疗掌骨骨折相当的固定方法。