Comparison of functional metacarpal splint and ulnar gutter splint in the treatment of fifth metacarpal neck fractures: a prospective comparative study.
Angulation
Fifth metacarpal neck fracture
Grip strength
Metacarpal functional splint
Metacarpal shortening
Ulnar gutter splint
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Apr 2019
13 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
10
01
2019
accepted:
03
04
2019
entrez:
17
4
2019
pubmed:
17
4
2019
medline:
14
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fifth metacarpal fractures are the most common fractures of the hand. These fractures are generally treated with conservative methods. The aim of this study was to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of two conservative treatment methods, functional metacarpal splint(FMS) and ulnar gutter splint(UGS), for the treatment of fifth metacarpal neck fractures. A prospective comparative study was designed to assess the conservative treatment of isolated and closed stable fractures of the fifth metacarpal neck. In total, 58 patients were included in the study and were treated with FMS or UGS after fracture reduction in a consecutive order. Angulation, shortening and functional outcome (QuickDASH scores and grip strengths) were evaluated at the 2nd and 6th months. Forty patients returned for follow-up. Twenty-two patients were treated with FMS, and 18 patients were treated with UGS. The average age was 28 years (SD ± 12, range;18-43) in the FMS group and 30 years (SD ± 14, range;18-58) in the UGS group. After reduction, significant correction was achieved in both groups, but the average angulation was lower in the FMS group(16 ± 7) compared with the UGS group (21 ± 8)(p = 0.043). However, this better initial reduction in FMS group(16 ± 7) could not be maintained in the 1st month follow-up (21 ± 5) (p = 0.009). In the FMS group, the improvement in QuickDASH scores between the 2nd and 6th month follow-up was significant (p = 0.003) but not in the UGS group(p = 0.075). When the expected grip strengths were calculated, the FMS group reached the expected strength values at the 2nd month follow-up, whereas the UGS group still exhibited significantly lower grip strength at the 2nd month follow-up(p = 0.008). However, at the end of the 6th month follow-up, both groups exhibited similar reduction, QuickDASH and grip strength values. In stable 5th metacarpal neck fractures, FMS is adequate to prevent loss of reduction and yields faster improvement in clinical scores with earlier gain of normal grip strength compared with UGS. However, in the long term, both FMS and UGS methods yield similar radiological and clinical outcomes. Patient comfort and compliance may be better with FMS due to less joint restriction, and these findings should be considered when deciding the treatment method. ISRCTN79534571 The date of registration: 01/04/2019 Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic, II.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Fifth metacarpal fractures are the most common fractures of the hand. These fractures are generally treated with conservative methods. The aim of this study was to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of two conservative treatment methods, functional metacarpal splint(FMS) and ulnar gutter splint(UGS), for the treatment of fifth metacarpal neck fractures.
METHODS
METHODS
A prospective comparative study was designed to assess the conservative treatment of isolated and closed stable fractures of the fifth metacarpal neck. In total, 58 patients were included in the study and were treated with FMS or UGS after fracture reduction in a consecutive order. Angulation, shortening and functional outcome (QuickDASH scores and grip strengths) were evaluated at the 2nd and 6th months.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Forty patients returned for follow-up. Twenty-two patients were treated with FMS, and 18 patients were treated with UGS. The average age was 28 years (SD ± 12, range;18-43) in the FMS group and 30 years (SD ± 14, range;18-58) in the UGS group. After reduction, significant correction was achieved in both groups, but the average angulation was lower in the FMS group(16 ± 7) compared with the UGS group (21 ± 8)(p = 0.043). However, this better initial reduction in FMS group(16 ± 7) could not be maintained in the 1st month follow-up (21 ± 5) (p = 0.009). In the FMS group, the improvement in QuickDASH scores between the 2nd and 6th month follow-up was significant (p = 0.003) but not in the UGS group(p = 0.075). When the expected grip strengths were calculated, the FMS group reached the expected strength values at the 2nd month follow-up, whereas the UGS group still exhibited significantly lower grip strength at the 2nd month follow-up(p = 0.008). However, at the end of the 6th month follow-up, both groups exhibited similar reduction, QuickDASH and grip strength values.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In stable 5th metacarpal neck fractures, FMS is adequate to prevent loss of reduction and yields faster improvement in clinical scores with earlier gain of normal grip strength compared with UGS. However, in the long term, both FMS and UGS methods yield similar radiological and clinical outcomes. Patient comfort and compliance may be better with FMS due to less joint restriction, and these findings should be considered when deciding the treatment method.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ISRCTN79534571 The date of registration: 01/04/2019 Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic, II.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30987619
doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2556-6
pii: 10.1186/s12891-019-2556-6
pmc: PMC6463644
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Pagination
169Références
J Hand Surg Am. 1999 Jul;24(4):835-44
pubmed: 10447177
Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1999 Sep;33(3):315-7
pubmed: 10505445
J Hand Surg Br. 2003 Oct;28(5):491-5
pubmed: 12954264
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003 Dec;123(10):534-7
pubmed: 14639483
J Hand Surg Br. 2004 Jun;29(3):214-7
pubmed: 15142689
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 May;87(5):1038-46
pubmed: 15866967
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006 May 18;7:44
pubmed: 16709254
Injury. 2008 Dec;39(12):1377-83
pubmed: 18656191
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2008 Dec;33(6):723-7
pubmed: 18662959
J Orthop Trauma. 2008 Sep;22(8):535-40
pubmed: 18758284
Hand (N Y). 2007 Dec;2(4):212-7
pubmed: 18780055
J Hand Surg Am. 2008 Oct;33(8):1362-8
pubmed: 18929202
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2008 Nov-Dec;42(5):303-9
pubmed: 19158449
Acta Radiol. 2009 Apr;50(3):296-300
pubmed: 19173096
Clin Rheumatol. 2011 Feb;30(2):185-91
pubmed: 20411289
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2010 Nov;35(9):725-9
pubmed: 20659966
J Orthop Surg Res. 2011 Jul 19;6:37
pubmed: 21771311
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2012 Jun;37(5):387-95
pubmed: 22170245
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2012 Mar;18(2):167-70
pubmed: 22792824
Acta Orthop Scand. 1990 Dec;61(6):531-4
pubmed: 2281761
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2013 Jul;38(6):658-66
pubmed: 23060463
J Hand Surg Am. 2012 Nov;37(11):2368-73
pubmed: 23101534
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014 Oct;24(7):1167-73
pubmed: 23934440
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016 Jan;136(1):135-42
pubmed: 26559192
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Mar;137(3):908-16
pubmed: 26910672
Am J Occup Ther. 1989 Jul;43(7):444-7
pubmed: 2750859
Unfallchirurgie. 1985 Jun;11(3):115-8
pubmed: 4035810
J Hand Surg Am. 1996 Mar;21(2):319-20
pubmed: 8683078
Am J Ind Med. 1996 Jun;29(6):602-8
pubmed: 8773720
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997 Apr;99(4):1079-83; discussion 1084-5
pubmed: 9091906
J Hand Surg Am. 1998 May;23(3):519-23
pubmed: 9620194