Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Maasstad Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2024 Oct;50(5):2399-2409. doi: 10.1007/s00068-024-02659-9. Epub 2024 Sep 23.
This study aimed to investigate practice variation in non-operative treatment methods and immobilisation duration for metacarpal fractures, and to evaluate patient-reported outcomes.
Conducted in 12 Dutch hospitals over three months in 2020, this study included adult patients with non-operatively treated solitary metacarpal fractures. Fractures were classified into intra-articular base, extra-articular base, shaft, neck, and intra-articular head fractures. The treatment methods (functional treatment allowing digit mobilisation or immobilisation) and immobilisation duration were assessed. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) at three months post-trauma.
Of 389 included patients, shaft fractures were most common (n = 150, 39%), with 93% immobilised, followed by fifth metacarpal neck fractures (n = 93, 24%), with 75% immobilised. Immobilisation rates for fifth metacarpal neck fractures varied between hospitals, ranging from 29% (95% CI 0.10-0.58) to 100% (95% CI 0.78-1.00). The median immobilisation duration for all fractures was 23 days (IQR: 20-28), and hospital setting was independently associated with this duration. Patients with metacarpal shaft fractures immobilised for less than 21 days had higher MHQ scores compared to those immobilised for 21 days or more (median (IQR) 83 (76-100) versus 71 (57-89), p = 0.026).
The results showed practice variation in the treatment of metacarpal fractures, especially in the treatment of fifth MC neck fractures, with some hospitals following the Dutch guideline that advocates functional treatment while others did not. There are suggestions that prolonged immobilisation of metacarpal shaft fractures may lead to a worse MHQ score. These findings underscore the need for adherence to treatment protocols and emphasize functional treatment to potentially improve patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
本研究旨在调查掌骨骨折非手术治疗方法和固定时间的实践差异,并评估患者报告的结果。
该研究于 2020 年在荷兰的 12 家医院进行,为期三个月,纳入了接受非手术治疗的单一掌骨骨折的成年患者。骨折分为关节内基底、关节外基底、骨干、颈和关节内头部骨折。评估了治疗方法(允许手指活动的功能治疗或固定)和固定时间。使用密歇根手部结果问卷(MHQ)在创伤后 3 个月评估患者报告的结果。
在纳入的 389 例患者中,骨干骨折最常见(n=150,39%),其中 93%采用固定治疗,其次是第五掌骨颈骨折(n=93,24%),其中 75%采用固定治疗。第五掌骨颈骨折的固定率在医院之间存在差异,范围为 29%(95%CI 0.10-0.58)至 100%(95%CI 0.78-1.00)。所有骨折的固定时间中位数为 23 天(IQR:20-28),医院设置与固定时间独立相关。固定时间少于 21 天的掌骨干骨折患者的 MHQ 评分高于固定时间为 21 天或更长时间的患者(中位数(IQR)83(76-100)比 71(57-89),p=0.026)。
结果显示掌骨骨折的治疗存在实践差异,特别是第五掌骨颈骨折的治疗,一些医院遵循荷兰指南主张功能治疗,而其他医院则不主张。有迹象表明,掌骨干骨折的长时间固定可能导致 MHQ 评分更差。这些发现强调了遵守治疗方案的必要性,并强调功能治疗可能会改善患者的结果和成本效益。