ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2026
Outcomes of Metacarpal Shaft Fractures Treated by Open Reduction Internal Fixation With Plates and Screws Versus Intramedullary Screws.
Article in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMetacarpal fractures are among the most common orthopedic injuries. When metacarpal shaft fractures require surgical fixation, common options include closed reduction percutaneous pinning, open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) using plates and screws (PS), and intramedullary screw fixation (IMS). Certain metacarpal shaft fractures are amenable to ORIF with either PS or IMS. The purpose of this study is to compare the functional outcomes and complication rates between these techniques.
methodsA retrospective review was performed of all patients that underwent ORIF with PS or IMS of metacarpal shaft fractures between the years 2015-2021 at a single, large private-academic institution. Postoperative patient-reported outcome measures were collected and medical records were reviewed for complications and range of motion (ROM). In addition, complications were subdivided into major and minor complications in accordance with previously published data on the subject.
resultsA total of 120 patients (60 PS, 60 IMS) were included in this study, and each of the groups were similar in age at the time of procedure, sex, hand dominance, laterality, and mechanism of injury. Postoperative functional scores were similar among both groups. Metacarpophalangeal joint ROM in the acute postoperative period was significantly greater in the IMS group when compared with PS. The overall complication rate was not significantly different between the 2 groups.
conclusionWhen treating metacarpal shaft fractures, both ORIF with PS and IMS can achieve acceptable outcomes. Patients treated with either fixation method should be counseled on the risk of developing symptomatic hardware that may require removal.
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.