• Daniel Dreyfuss, Raviv Allon, Nufar Izacson, and Dan Hutt.
• 1 Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.
• Hand (N Y). 2019 Jan 1; 14 (1): 27-33.

BackgroundMetacarpal shaft fractures that necessitate surgery are frequently fixated with either intramedullary pins or plates and screws. This study compared outcome measurements of these two techniques.MethodsPatients operated on for closed shaft fractures of metacarpals 2-5 were examined at least 1 year after injury. All fractures were fixated by pinning between years 2013 and 2015 and by locking plates and screws between 2016 and 2017. Evaluation included range of motion measurements for all fingers compared with the contralateral hand; comparison of grip strength; finger alignment and rotation; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score; and radiographic measurements of fracture reduction and healing.ResultsThirty patients with 39 fractured metacarpals treated by pinning were compared with 29 patients with 35 fractured metacarpals treated by locking plate and screws. Both groups had similar characteristics and preoperative fracture patterns on radiograph. Patients in the plate group were found to have significantly improved outcomes in total range of motion of the operated digits (loss of 4° extension, 10° flexion, and 14° total vs 10° extension, 19° flexion, and 29° total), grip strength (93% vs 83% of contralateral hand), rotational deformity (5 digits, 1° vs 15 digits, 6°), and DASH score (10.5 vs 15.6). Radiographic bone healing time (59 vs 50 days) and operative time (58 vs 41 minutes) were both significantly longer in fractures fixated by plates.ConclusionsFixation with locking plates allows earlier mobilization without need for splinting. Our study supports the use of this method over intramedullary pinning for metacarpal shaft fractures.

31 keywords...

hide…