Abstract
Introduction Scaphoid fractures are the most common type of hand fracture. Traditionally, non-displaced fractures of the scaphoid have been treated conservatively, with the immobilisation of the hand with a cast; hence, surgical fixation of the fracture has become increasingly popular because of quicker re-mobilisation and return to its original function. However, this was balanced against the risk of complications of surgery of the fractures. This review article has found that there is no statistically significant benefit obtained, with both treatment methods showing equally good outcomes at the final follow-up. The aim of this review was to discuss the treatment of scaphoid fractures comparing the effectiveness of conservative treatment, with surgical intervention in non-displaced waist fractures of the scaphoid bone. Materials and methods Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library, were searched with the
Highlights
Scaphoid fractures are the most common type of hand fracture
Studies have shown that there are no long-term benefits of this surgery compared to conservative management. This surgery has a transient benefit in terms of range of motion, grip strength, but at a final follow–up, both the treatment groups showed no statistical significant differences in terms of the outcome
The usual mechanism of injury for a scaphoid fracture is due to a fall on an outstretched hand (FOOSH)[2]
Summary
Non-displaced fractures of the scaphoid have been treated conservatively, with the immobilisation of the hand with a cast; surgical fixation of the fracture has become increasingly popular because of quicker re-mobilisation and return to its original function. This was balanced against the risk of complications of surgery of the fractures. The aim of this review was to discuss the treatment of scaphoid fractures comparing the effectiveness of conservative treatment, with surgical intervention in non-displaced waist fractures of the scaphoid bone. Results A total of 158 articles were found during the search from the electronic databases for this review study. This review paper examines that which of the two treatment methods has a better outcome for the patient in terms of cost, complication risks, function, nonunion rates and patient satisfaction
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
