ArticleThe Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons2025
Comparing Fixation Techniques in Metacarpal Fractures: Intramedullary Screw Versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation With Plate and Screw Construct.
Article in The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Biomechanical Analysis of Intramedullary Threaded Nail Fixation and Dorsal Plate and Screw Fixation for Metacarpal Base Fractures.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2027Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to compare intramedullary headless screw (IMN) versus plate and screw fixation (open reduction internal fixation [ORIF]) in metacarpal (MC) fractures, specifically looking at implant cost, operating room time, outcomes, and complications. We hypothesize that IMN will provide at least equivalent outcomes and complication rates compared with ORIF while simultaneously decreasing operating room time and lowering overall costs.
methodsPatients with MC fractures treated surgically at a single, level-one, trauma center between January 2018 and December 2022 were identified. Eighty-five patients and 108 fractures were included. Records were retrospectively reviewed for demographic information, injury data, surgical details, and follow-up information.
resultsThe average age of included patients was 32.4 years. The leading causes of injury included altercations, falls, and motor vehicle collisions. Tourniquet time was an average of 79.9 minutes in the ORIF group and 37.6 minutes in the IMN group. Average cost of the implant and time to union were similar in both the groups. IMN fixation had faster time to motion and time to full range of motion. Complications, including revision surgery rates, wound infections, implant complications, and non/mal unions, were collected. Nine patients underwent revision surgery, eight in the ORIF group and one in the IMN group. Two superficial wound infections were noted in the ORIF group. One implant complication was observed in the ORIF group, as defined by implant breakage after the patient punched a wall. Three implant removals were noted, all in the ORIF group.
conclusionIn our experience, the use of an intramedullary screw for fixation of MC fractures is a reliable and safe method of fixation. The use of this procedure provides patients with quicker return to motion, faster time to full range of motion, and similar time to union with fewer complications. Furthermore, it resulted in decreased tourniquet time resulting in decreased overall cost. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective review, Level III Therapeutic.
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.