Abstract
Purpose
Methods
Results
Figures and Tables
Fig. 1
Fracture angulation was analysed using uninjured contralateral metacarpal (A), injured metacarpal preoperative (B), postoperative (C), and long term follow-up (D) X-ray images. Measurements have been undergone on oblique views of hand X-ray. Measured values were utilized for intergroup comparison, and besides difference of angles were figured out (i.e., b-a, c-a, and d-a) to avoid normal angulation between metacarpal head and shaft.
![ahm-23-230-g001](/upload/SynapseData/ArticleImage/1149ahm/ahm-23-230-g001.jpg)
Fig. 2
Case 1. (A) A 28-year-old male patient was injured on the right 5th metacarpal bone, angulation 48°. (B) The metacarpal neck fracture was reduced using closed reduction and parallel transverse pinning method, showing 20° angulation. (C) However, heavy functional activities have led to slight recurrence (angulation 23°) at 4 week postoperative period.
![ahm-23-230-g002](/upload/SynapseData/ArticleImage/1149ahm/ahm-23-230-g002.jpg)
Fig. 3
Case 2. (A) A 30-year-old male patient was injured on the right 5th metacarpal bone, angulation 39°. (B) The metacarpal shaft fracture was reduced using open reduction and internal plate fixation method, showing 17° angulation. (C) Active exercise was followed by implant removal at 30 weeks postoperatively. The metacarpal shaft presented stability with maintenance of 15° angulation.
![ahm-23-230-g003](/upload/SynapseData/ArticleImage/1149ahm/ahm-23-230-g003.jpg)
Fig. 4
Fracture angles were analysed based on the difference between angulation of injured and uninjured metacarpals. Group 1 and 2 showed adequate reduction postoperatively. However, Group 1 (closed reduction and percutaneous parallel pinning) demonstrated slight recurrence in terms of angulation (p<0.05). Nonetheless, Group 2 (open reduction and plate internal fixation) presented consistent maintenance of reduction state. PreOp: Preoperation, PostOp: Postoperation.
![ahm-23-230-g004](/upload/SynapseData/ArticleImage/1149ahm/ahm-23-230-g004.jpg)
Table 1
Patient demographics: inter-group analysis did not show significant differences for number of patients, sex, age, observation period, or fracture site
![ahm-23-230-i001](/upload/SynapseData/ArticleImage/1149ahm/ahm-23-230-i001.jpg)
Table 2
Angulation analysis in Group 1
![ahm-23-230-i002](/upload/SynapseData/ArticleImage/1149ahm/ahm-23-230-i002.jpg)
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. Angulation at preoperative and follow-up periods exhibited significant difference, in comparison with the average of normal side. Nonetheless, measurements at immediate postoperative state demonstrated comparable outcomes between fractured and uninjured metacarpals.
Group 1: closed reduction and percutaneous parallel pinning.
*p<0.05.
Table 3
Angulation analysis in Group 2
![ahm-23-230-i003](/upload/SynapseData/ArticleImage/1149ahm/ahm-23-230-i003.jpg)
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. Angulation at preoperative period exhibited significant difference, in comparison with the average of normal side. Nonetheless, postoperative and follow-up measurements showed comparable outcomes, when compared to the normal side.
Group 2: open reduction and plate internal fixation.
*p<0.05.
References
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)