Abstract
BackgroundMetacarpal shaft fractures are common and can be treated nonoperatively. Shortening, angulation, and rotational deformity are indications for surgical treatment. Various forms of treatment with advantages and disadvantages have been documented. The purpose of the study was to determine the stability of fracture fixation with intramedullary headless compression screws in two types of metacarpal shaft fractures and compare them to other common forms of rigid fixation: dorsal plating and lag screw fixation. It was hypothesized that headless compression screws would demonstrate a biomechanical stronger construct.MethodsFive matched paired hands (age 60.9 ± 4.6 years), utilizing non-thumb metacarpals, were used for comparative fixation in two fracture types created by an osteotomy. In transverse diaphyseal fractures, fixation by headless compression screws (n = 7) and plating (n = 8) were compared. In long oblique diaphyseal fractures, headless compression screws (n = 8) were compared with plating (n = 8) and lag screws (n = 7). Testing was performed using an MTS frame producing an apex dorsal, three point bending force. Peak load to failure and stiffness were calculated from the load-displacement curve generated.ResultsFor transverse fractures, headless compression screws had a significantly higher stiffness and peak load to failure, means 249.4 N/mm and 584.8 N, than plates, means 129.02 N/mm and 303.9 N (both p < 0.001). For long oblique fractures, stiffness and peak load to failure for headless compression screws were means 209 N/mm and 758.4 N, for plates 258.7 N/mm and 518.5 N, and for lag screws 172.18 N/mm and 234.11 N. There was significance in peak load to failure for headless compression screws vs plates (p = 0.023), headless compression screws vs lag screws (p < 0.001), and plates vs lag screws (p = 0.009). There was no significant difference in stiffness between groups.ConclusionIntramedullary fixation of diaphyseal metacarpal fractures with a headless compression screw provides excellent biomechanical stability. Coupled with lower risks for adverse effects, headless compression screws may be a preferable option for those requiring rapid return to sport or work.Level of evidenceBasic Science Study, Biomechanics.
Highlights
Metacarpal shaft fractures are common and can be treated nonoperatively
Metacarpal fractures account for almost 18% of all fractures distal to the elbow, with non-thumb fractures accounting for 88% of this group [1]
The purpose of the study was to determine the stability of fracture fixation with intramedullary headless compression screws in two types of metacarpal shaft fractures and compare them to other common forms of rigid fixation: dorsal plating and lag screw fixation
Summary
Metacarpal shaft fractures are common and can be treated nonoperatively. Shortening, angulation, and rotational deformity are indications for surgical treatment. Metacarpal shaft fractures can be treated nonoperatively, but shortening, angulation, and rotational deformity can diminish clinical function [2]. Plating represents a strong construct for a wide variety of fracture types with the drawbacks of more extensive soft tissue dissection, higher infection risk, risk of extensor adhesions, or hardware irritation [3, 4]. Screws represent another rigid form of fixation and are an option with long oblique or spiral fractures. A disadvantage of k-wires is that they protrude through the skin risking infection and making early range of motion difficult [5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
