ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2026
Compari̇son of closed reducti̇on percutaneous pi̇nni̇ng vs. open reducti̇on plate-screw fi̇xati̇on techni̇ques i̇n unstable metacarpal shaft fractures.
Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the two prevalent techniques of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and closed reduction percutaneous pinning (CRPP) in the management of unstable metacarpal shaft fractures, thus guiding in selecting the appropriate treatment method through an evaluation of functional, morphologic, and performance-based criteria.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 96 patients (plate-screw:n=39; K-wire: n=57) who underwent surgery between 2017 and 2020 for isolated metacarpal shaft fractures, excluding the first metacarpal. QuickDASH, Modified Mayo Wrist Score (MMWS), metacarpophalangeal range of motion (ROM), grip strength, and metacarpal shortening in comparison to the contralateral hand were assessed at the one-year follow-up. The parameters were subjected to statistical comparison between the groups.
resultsThe groups exhibited similar demographics. The QuickDASH, MMWS distribution, and ROM exhibited similar outcomes across the groups (p = 0.40; p = 0.10; p = 0.29, respectively). The percentage of grip strength relative to the unaffected side was higher in the plate group (96.7 ± 9.2 vs. 89.2 ± 14.5; p = 0.002; Holm–Bonferroni adjusted p = 0.012; medium effect size). Radiographic shortening and the proportion of patients with clinically relevant shortening (≥ 2 mm) were quantitatively lower with the plate-screw group, although complications occurred more frequently; nonetheless, these secondary variations did not consistently achieve statistical significance following adjustments for multiple comparisons and covariates.
conclusionsWhile functional scores and joint range of motion were similar between groups at the end of the first year, normalized grip strength was significantly higher in the plate-screw group compared to the K-wire group. Nonetheless, complication rates were higher in the plate-screw group. Therefore, in cases for whom the preservation of grip strength is paramount and soft tissue problems are tolerable, plate-screw fixation may be considered a better option; conversely, when soft tissue preservation and minimal invasiveness are prioritized, K-wire fixation is the more suitable approach. The decision must be tailored according to the fracture pattern and the patient’s expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41572078What 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.