We have located links that may give you full text access.
Closed Reduction Percutaneous Pinning Versus Open Reduction With Plate and Screw Fixation in Management of Unstable Proximal Phalangeal Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND: Proximal phalanx fractures are common, with surgical fixation indicated for unstable fractures. Traditionally, closed reduction percutaneous pinning (CRPP) resulted in decreased stiffness and tendon irritation compared to open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). We hypothesized that more recent studies would have more similar outcomes to CRPP. The purpose of this study was to compare CRPP and ORIF in terms of range of motion, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores, and complications.
METHODS: Four electronic databases were queried from 2010 to present. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, two independent reviewers performed a two-step review process to identify relevant articles. Patient demographics, total active motion (TAM), DASH, and complications were extracted. The methodological quality of each study included was assessed independently. Meta-analysis was performed for comparative trials.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria including four comparative studies: Thirteen studies included TAM. The weighted average TAM was 228 ± 34° for CRPP and 223 ± 32° for ORIF ( P = .07 with 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.5 to 10.5). Seven studies evaluated DASH scores; weighted average was 8.2 ± 8.9 for CRPP and 11.7 ± 6.5 for ORIF ( P < .01 with 95% CI, 1.8-5.2). Two studies directly compared CRPP to ORIF, favoring ORIF for both TAM with d = 1.07 and DASH with d = 0.23. Rates of tenolysis or hardware removal were higher for ORIF ( P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: New literature suggests more equipoise with regard to treatment of proximal phalanx fracture with CRPP versus ORIF.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Meta-analysis, Level II.
METHODS: Four electronic databases were queried from 2010 to present. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, two independent reviewers performed a two-step review process to identify relevant articles. Patient demographics, total active motion (TAM), DASH, and complications were extracted. The methodological quality of each study included was assessed independently. Meta-analysis was performed for comparative trials.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria including four comparative studies: Thirteen studies included TAM. The weighted average TAM was 228 ± 34° for CRPP and 223 ± 32° for ORIF ( P = .07 with 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.5 to 10.5). Seven studies evaluated DASH scores; weighted average was 8.2 ± 8.9 for CRPP and 11.7 ± 6.5 for ORIF ( P < .01 with 95% CI, 1.8-5.2). Two studies directly compared CRPP to ORIF, favoring ORIF for both TAM with d = 1.07 and DASH with d = 0.23. Rates of tenolysis or hardware removal were higher for ORIF ( P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: New literature suggests more equipoise with regard to treatment of proximal phalanx fracture with CRPP versus ORIF.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Meta-analysis, Level II.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults.Gut 2024 April 17
Systemic lupus erythematosus.Lancet 2024 April 18
Should renin-angiotensin system inhibitors be held prior to major surgery?British Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 May
Ventilator Waveforms May Give Clues to Expiratory Muscle Activity.American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2024 April 25
Acute Kidney Injury and Electrolyte Imbalances Caused by Dapagliflozin Short-Term Use.Pharmaceuticals 2024 March 27
Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.Endoscopy 2024 April 27
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app