Zhuang Thompson, Berns Ellis, Hale Erin, Lin Ines, Sobel Andrew D
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol. 2025 Jun;30(3):293-298. doi: 10.1142/S2424835525500341. Epub 2025 Apr 16.
While functional and patient-reported outcomes are similar for closed reduction percutaneous pinning (CRPP) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of phalanx fractures, controversy exists regarding optimal fixation choice. In this study, we tested the null hypotheses that there is no difference in (1) percentage of patients undergoing secondary procedures within 2 years, (2) therapy utilisation and (3) total costs following CRPP and ORIF of phalanx fractures. Using an administrative claims database, we identified patients undergoing CRPP or ORIF of phalanx fractures from 2011 to 2020. Secondary procedures assessed within 2 years after CRPP or ORIF included phalanx osteotomy, tenolysis, irrigation and debridement, metacarpophalangeal joint arthrodesis and interphalangeal joint arthrodesis or arthroplasty. We calculated therapy utilisation at 6-month intervals after surgery and total cost of care at 90 days post-procedure. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between choice of surgical fixation and incidence of secondary procedures, adjusting for age, sex, region, insurance and Elixhauser comorbidity index. The composite incidence of secondary procedures was 3.1% after CRPP and 4.7% after ORIF ( < 0.001). Within 2 years after CRPP, fewer patients had tenolysis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-0.63]), interphalangeal joint arthrodesis (OR = 0.51 [95% CI: 0.41-0.62]) or interphalangeal joint arthroplasty procedures (OR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.38-0.87]). Patients who underwent CRPP had increased therapy utilisation, but similar 90-day total cost of care. CRPP for phalanx fractures is associated with a lower incidence of subsequent procedures compared to ORIF. Further studies are needed to compare CRPP with ORIF for phalanx fractures while accounting for specific fracture patterns as confounders, which was a limitation of this study. Level III (Therapeutic).
虽然指骨骨折的闭合复位经皮穿针固定术(CRPP)和切开复位内固定术(ORIF)在功能和患者报告的结果方面相似,但在最佳固定选择上仍存在争议。在本研究中,我们检验了以下零假设:(1)2年内接受二次手术的患者百分比;(2)治疗利用率;(3)指骨骨折CRPP和ORIF后的总成本,这三者不存在差异。利用一个行政索赔数据库,我们确定了2011年至2020年期间接受指骨骨折CRPP或ORIF的患者。在CRPP或ORIF后2年内评估的二次手术包括指骨截骨术、肌腱松解术、冲洗和清创术、掌指关节融合术以及指间关节融合术或关节成形术。我们计算了术后6个月间隔的治疗利用率以及术后90天的护理总成本。多变量逻辑回归模型用于评估手术固定选择与二次手术发生率之间的关联,并对年龄、性别、地区、保险和埃利克斯豪泽合并症指数进行了调整。CRPP后二次手术的综合发生率为3.1%,ORIF后为4.7%(<0.001)。在CRPP后2年内,进行肌腱松解术(优势比[OR]=0.57[95%置信区间(CI):0.52 - 0.63])、指间关节融合术(OR = 0.51[95%CI:0.41 - 0.62])或指间关节成形术(OR = 0.58[95%CI:0.38 - 0.87])的患者较少。接受CRPP的患者治疗利用率增加,但90天护理总成本相似。与ORIF相比,指骨骨折的CRPP与后续手术发生率较低相关。需要进一步研究在考虑特定骨折类型作为混杂因素的情况下,比较指骨骨折的CRPP和ORIF,这是本研究的一个局限性。三级(治疗性)。