ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2025
Metacarpal Fracture Trends in Treatment: A Matched Cohort Analysis of 1022 Patients.
Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.