Hand surgery & rehabilitation · 2025
Fix the phalanx: A meta-analysis comparing intramedullary screws, pinning, plates, and lag screws for closed extra-articular proximal phalanx fractures.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hall Brandon, Khan Shawn, Essa Ahmad, Koucheki Robert, Paul Ryan, Chan Andrea, Zuo Kevin J, Persitz Jonathan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Proximal phalanx fractures are common hand injuries with multiple fixation options. This meta-analysis compared outcomes of closed extra-articular fractures treated with intramedullary screws (IMS), percutaneous pinning (PCP), plating, or lag screws.
METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases (January 2010-May 2025) was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes were complication and revision rates; secondary outcomes included immobilization duration, total active motion [TAM] and grip strength. Data were pooled using random- or fixed-effects models based on heterogeneity. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using validated tools.
RESULTS: Eleven studies (19 treatment arms; 403 patients; 528 fractures) were included: IMS (n = 104), PCP (n = 285), plating (n = 100), and lag screws (n = 39). Mean age was 39 years; mean follow-up, 16.4 months. IMS had the lowest pooled complication rates (major: 0.96%; minor: 2.1%). Compared with IMS, plating had higher odds of major complications (OR 12.63, 95% CI 1.39-114.7; p = 0.02), while minor complications were more frequent with lag screws (OR 78.3, 95% CI 4.2-1465.1; p = 0.005) and PCP (OR 18.6, 95% CI 1.7-199.6; p = 0.02). Revision rates ranged from 5.8% (IMS) to 10.3% (lag screws), without statistical significance. Immobilization was shortest with IMS (mean difference vs. PCP -3.3 weeks; p = 0.01). TAM was highest with IMS (231°) but not statistically significant (p = 0.6).
CONCLUSIONS: Intra medullary screw fixation was associated with lower complication risk and shorter immobilization compared with other fixation methods, likely reflecting the advantages of a minimally invasive, stable construct. As current evidence is limited to short-term outcomes and heterogeneous study designs, further high-quality prospective trials with longer follow-up are needed to validate these findings and to clarify the long-term outcomes of intramedullary screw fixation, including the potential implications of cartilage damage.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases (January 2010-May 2025) was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes were complication and revision rates; secondary outcomes included immobilization duration, total active motion [TAM] and grip strength. Data were pooled using random- or fixed-effects models based on heterogeneity. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using validated tools.
RESULTS: Eleven studies (19 treatment arms; 403 patients; 528 fractures) were included: IMS (n = 104), PCP (n = 285), plating (n = 100), and lag screws (n = 39). Mean age was 39 years; mean follow-up, 16.4 months. IMS had the lowest pooled complication rates (major: 0.96%; minor: 2.1%). Compared with IMS, plating had higher odds of major complications (OR 12.63, 95% CI 1.39-114.7; p = 0.02), while minor complications were more frequent with lag screws (OR 78.3, 95% CI 4.2-1465.1; p = 0.005) and PCP (OR 18.6, 95% CI 1.7-199.6; p = 0.02). Revision rates ranged from 5.8% (IMS) to 10.3% (lag screws), without statistical significance. Immobilization was shortest with IMS (mean difference vs. PCP -3.3 weeks; p = 0.01). TAM was highest with IMS (231°) but not statistically significant (p = 0.6).
CONCLUSIONS: Intra medullary screw fixation was associated with lower complication risk and shorter immobilization compared with other fixation methods, likely reflecting the advantages of a minimally invasive, stable construct. As current evidence is limited to short-term outcomes and heterogeneous study designs, further high-quality prospective trials with longer follow-up are needed to validate these findings and to clarify the long-term outcomes of intramedullary screw fixation, including the potential implications of cartilage damage.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.