سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مشهد

Nemirov, Daniel, Kasper, Alexis, Sherman, Matthew, Siddiqui, Hassan, Ilyas, Asif, Hozack, Bryan. (1404). Metacarpal Fracture Trends in Treatment: A Matched Cohort Analysis of 1022 Patients. , 13(8), 489-496. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2025.80704.3683
Daniel Nemirov; Alexis A. Kasper; Matthew Sherman; Hassan Siddiqui; Asif M. Ilyas; Bryan Hozack. "Metacarpal Fracture Trends in Treatment: A Matched Cohort Analysis of 1022 Patients". , 13, 8, 1404, 489-496. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2025.80704.3683
Nemirov, Daniel, Kasper, Alexis, Sherman, Matthew, Siddiqui, Hassan, Ilyas, Asif, Hozack, Bryan. (1404). 'Metacarpal Fracture Trends in Treatment: A Matched Cohort Analysis of 1022 Patients', , 13(8), pp. 489-496. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2025.80704.3683
Nemirov, Daniel, Kasper, Alexis, Sherman, Matthew, Siddiqui, Hassan, Ilyas, Asif, Hozack, Bryan. Metacarpal Fracture Trends in Treatment: A Matched Cohort Analysis of 1022 Patients. , 1404; 13(8): 489-496. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2025.80704.3683

Metacarpal Fracture Trends in Treatment: A Matched Cohort Analysis of 1022 Patients

The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
مقاله 5، دوره 13، شماره 8، آبان 2025، صفحه 489-496    اصل مقاله (776.06 K)
نوع مقاله: RESEARCH PAPER
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22038/abjs.2025.80704.3683
نویسندگان
Daniel Nemirov1؛ Alexis A. Kasper* 1؛ Matthew Sherman1؛ Hassan Siddiqui2؛ Asif M. Ilyas1؛ Bryan Hozack3
1Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, USA
2Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA
3Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Egg Harbor Township, USA
چکیده
Objectives: The goals of this study were twofold: first, to assess epidemiologic characteristics of metacarpal fractures including patient and fracture characteristics; second, to investigate the most common treatment strategies employed.
Methods: Patients presenting to a single large academic practice with an isolated acute metacarpal fracture were retrospectively reviewed. Baseline demographics and fracture-specific data were collected. Two investigative arms of the study were then delineated. In the first arm, patient groups were matched based on metacarpal involvement between operative and nonoperative cohorts and CPT-stratified data was independently assessed and grouped based on frequency. In the second arm, a non-matched analysis was performed to assess management strategies and relative frequency of varying techniques.
Results: After matching, 1022 patients were included in the first investigational arm. Fractures of the fifth metacarpal were most common. Most operative fractures were located at the metacarpal shaft (43.2%), whereas those managed nonoperatively were most found at the metacarpal neck (38.2%). In the second investigational arm, the four most common CPT codes were 26600 (closed management without manipulation), 26615 (open reduction and internal fixation), 26608 (closed reduction and percutaneous pinning), and 26605 (closed management with manipulation) in descending order. 97.2% of patients undergoing ORIF underwent plate and screw fixation.
Conclusion: Most metacarpal fractures were found to have been managed nonoperatively. When treated operatively, metacarpal fractures were more often treated with open reduction and internal fixation rather than closed reduction and pinning. Most patients were treated with a plate and screw construct in favor of an intramedullary screw.
        Level of evidence: III
کلیدواژه‌ها
Fracture fixation؛ Metacarpal؛ Metacarpal repair؛ Treatment trends
مراجع
  1. Kollitz KM, Hammert WC, Vedder NB, Huang JI. Metacarpal fractures: treatment and complications. Hand (N Y). 2014; 9(1):16-23. doi:10.1007/s11552-013-9562-1.
  2. Chung KC, Spilson SV. The frequency and epidemiology of hand and forearm fractures in the United States. J Hand Surg Am. 2001; 26(5):908-915. doi:10.1053/jhsu.2001.26322.
  3. Gudmundsen TE, Borgen L. Fractures of the fifth metacarpal. Acta Radiol. 2009; 50(3):296-300. doi:10.1080/02841850802709201.
  4. Angermann P, Lohmann M. Injuries to the hand and wrist. A study of 50,272 injuries. J Hand Surg Br. 1993; 18(5):642-644. doi:10.1016/0266-7681(93)90024-a.
  5. Hove LM. Fractures of the hand. Distribution and relative incidence. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1993; 27(4):317-319.
  6. Nakashian MN, Pointer L, Owens BD, Wolf JM. Incidence of Metacarpal Fractures in the US Population. Hand (NY). 2012; 7(4):426-430. doi:10.1007/s11552-012-9442-0.
  7. Ben-Amotz O, Sammer DM. Practical Management of Metacarpal Fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015; 136(3):370e-379e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001527.
  8. Wong VW, Higgins JP. Evidence-Based Medicine: Management of Metacarpal Fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017; 140(1):140e-151e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000003470.
  9. Carreño A, Ansari MT, Malhotra R. Management of metacarpal fractures. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020; 11(4):554-561. doi:10.1016/j.jcot.2020.05.043.
  10. Bloom JMP, Hammert WC. Evidence-based medicine: Metacarpal fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014; 133(5):1252-1260. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000095.
  11. Ali A, Hamman J, Mass DP. The biomechanical effects of
 

       angulated boxer’s fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 1999; 24(4):835-844. doi:10.1053/jhsu.1999.0835.

  1. Diaz-Garcia R, Waljee JF. Current management of metacarpal fractures. Hand Clin. 2013; 29(4):507-518. doi:10.1016/j.hcl.2013.09.004.
  2. Giddins GEB. The non-operative management of hand fractures. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2015; 40(1):33-41. doi:10.1177/1753193414548170.
  3. McKerrell J, Bowen V, Johnston G, Zondervan J. Boxer’s fractures--conservative or operative management? J Trauma. 1987; 27(5):486-490.
  4. Statius Muller MG, Poolman RW, van Hoogstraten MJ, Steller EP. Immediate mobilization gives good results in boxer’s fractures with volar angulation up to 70 degrees: a prospective randomized trial comparing immediate mobilization with cast immobilization. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003; 123(10):534-537. doi:10.1007/s00402-003-0580-2.
  5. Kozin SH, Thoder JJ, Lieberman G. Operative treatment of metacarpal and phalangeal shaft fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000; 8(2):111-121. doi:10.5435/00124635-200003000-00005.
  6. Taha RHM, Grindlay D, Deshmukh S, Montgomery A, Davis TRC, Karantana A. A Systematic Review of Treatment Interventions for Metacarpal Shaft Fractures in Adults. Hand (N Y). 2022; 17(5):869-878. doi:10.1177/1558944720974363.
  7. Vasilakis V, Sinnott CJ, Hamade M, Hamade H, Pinsky BA. Extra-articular Metacarpal Fractures: Closed Reduction and Percutaneous Pinning Versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019; 7(5):e2261. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000002261.
  8. Adams JE, Miller T, Rizzo M. The biomechanics of fixation techniques for hand fractures. Hand Clin. 2013; 29(4):493-500. doi:10.1016/j.hcl.2013.08.004.
  9. Melamed E, Joo L, Lin E, Perretta D, Capo JT. Plate Fixation versus Percutaneous Pinning for Unstable Metacarpal Fractures: A Meta-analysis. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol. 2017; 22(1):29-34. doi:10.1142/S0218810417500058.
  10. Wallace DR, Shiver AL, Pulliam SK, Byrd BM, McGee-Lawrence ME, Snoddy MC. Intramedullary Threaded Nail Fixation Versus Plate and Screw Construct in Metacarpal Neck Fractures: A Biomechanical Study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2023; 31(11):e516-e522. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-22-00595.
  11. Patel M, Castañeda P, Campbell DH, Putnam JG, McKee MD. Threaded Intramedullary Nails Are Biomechanically Superior to Crossed K-wires for Metacarpal Neck Fractures. Hand (N Y). 2023; 18(1):55-60. doi:10.1177/15589447211003182.
  12. Jones CM, Padegimas EM, Weikert N, Greulich S, Ilyas AM, Siegler S. Headless Screw Fixation of Metacarpal Neck Fractures: A Mechanical Comparative Analysis. Hand (N Y). 2019; 14(2):187-192. doi:10.1177/1558944717731859.
  13. Poolman RW, Goslings JC, Lee J, Muller MS, Steller EP, Struijs PA. A. Conservative treatment for closed fifth (small finger) metacarpal neck fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005; 2005(3):CD003210. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003210.pub3
 

 

 

 

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 102
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 61