Aims. The aims of this study were to describe the epidemiology of metacarpal shaft fractures (MSFs), assess variation in treatment and complications following standard care, document hospital resource use, and explore factors associated with treatment modality. Methods. A multicentre, cross-sectional retrospective study of MSFs at six centres in the UK. We collected and analyzed healthcare records, operative notes, and radiographs of adults presenting within ten days of a MSF affecting the second to fifth metacarpal between 1 August 2016 and 31 July 2017. Total emergency department (ED) attendances were used to estimate prevalence. Results. A total of 793 patients (75% male, 25% female) with 897 MSFs were included, comprising 0.1% of 837,212 ED attendances. The annual incidence of MSF was 40 per 100,000. The median age was 27 years (IQR 21 to 41); the highest incidence was in men aged 16 to 24 years. Transverse fractures were the most common. Over 80% of all fractures were treated non-surgically, with variation across centres. Overall, 12 types of non-surgical and six types of surgical treatment were used. Fracture pattern, complexity, displacement, and age determined choice of treatment. Patients who were treated surgically required more radiographs and longer radiological and outpatient follow-up, and were more likely to be referred for therapy. Complications occurred in 5% of patients (39/793). Most patients attended planned follow-up, with 20% (160/783) failing to attend at least one or more clinic appointments. Conclusion. MSFs are common hand injuries among young, working (economically active) men, but there is considerable heterogeneity in treatment, rehabilitation, and resource use. They are a burden on healthcare resources and society, thus further research is needed to optimize treatment. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):652–661

Metacarpal fractures represent up to 33% of all hand fractures; of which the majority can be treated non-operatively. Previous research has shown excellent putcomes with non-operative treatment yet surgical stabilisation is recommended to avoid malrotation and symptomatic shortening. It is unknown whether operative is superior to non-operative treatment in oblique or spiral metacarpal shaft fractures. The aim of the study was to compare non-operative treatment of mobilisation with open surgical stabilisation. 42 adults (≥ 18 years) with a single displaced oblique or spiral metacarpal shaft fractures were randomly assigned in a 1:1 pattern to either non-operative treatment with free mobilisation or operative treatment with open reduction and fixation with lag screws in a prospective study. The primary outcome measure was grip-strength in the injured hand in comparison to the uninjured hand at 1-year follow-up. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score, ranges of motion, metacarpal shortening, complications, time off work, patient satisfaction and costs were secondary outcomes. All 42 patients attended final follow-up after 1 year. The mean grip strength in the non-operative group was 104% (range 73–250%) of the contralateral hand and 96% (range 58–121%) in the operatively treated patients. Mean metacarpal shortening was 5.0 (range 0–9) mm in the non-operative group and 0.6 (range 0–7) mm in the operative group. There were five minor complications and three revision operations, all in the operative group. The costs for non-operative treatment were estimated at 1,347 USD compared to 3,834USD for operative treatment; sick leave was significantly longer in the operative group (35 days, range 0–147) than in the non-operative group (12 days, range 0–62) (p=0.008). When treated with immediate free mobilization single, patients with displaced spiral or oblique metacarpal shaft fractures have outcomes that are comparable to those after operative treatment, despite some metacarpal shortening. Complication rates, costs and sick leave are higher with operative treatment. Early mobilisation of spiral or long oblique single metacarpal fractures is the preferred treatment. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03067454

Abstract. Objectives. 1. To describe the epidemiology of metacarpal shaft fractures (MSF) in adults. 2. To evaluate the variation in practice and document complications following usual care. 3. To explore factors associated with treatment modality. 4. To document hospital resource use following MSF. Methods. A multi-centre, retrospective, cross-sectional study of MSF at six centres. The healthcare records, operative notes and imaging of adults presenting within 10 days of a MSF, affecting the second to fifth metacarpal between 1st August 2016 to 31st July 2017, were reviewed. Total number of Emergency Department (ED) attendances were used to calculate prevalence. Data analyses are primarily descriptive with 95% confidence intervals to quantify uncertainty in estimates. Results. Of 837, 212 ED attendances, 793 patients (75% male, 25% female), with 897 MSF were eligible, a prevalence of 0.1%. The median age was 27 years (16–97); the highest incidence was in males aged between 16 and 24 years. The most common fracture pattern was transverse. While 83% were treated non-surgically overall, this varied across centres. Twelve different types of non-surgical and six different types of surgical treatment were used. Multi-fragmentary fracture patterns were most likely to be treated surgically and long oblique least likely. Fracture pattern, complexity, displacement and age were associated with treatment modality. Patients treated surgically required more radiographs, longer radiographic and outpatient follow-up and were more likely to be referred for therapy. 5% (39/793) experienced a complication. 20% (160/783) failed to attend at least one or more clinic appointments. Conclusions. MSF are a common injuries, predominantly affecting young males of working age. There is variation in mode and type of treatment, with the majority treated non-surgically in the selected centres. Despite a low complication rate, they require considerable secondary care resources. Further research into the optimal treatment modality for these injuries is needed. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Introduction. Surgical treatment is justified in patients with fifth metacarpal shaft fractures with angulation exceeding 30 degrees, as these patients are prone to have shortening, restriction of movements, decreased efficiency of the flexor tendons and poor cosmetic results1,2. The authors describe a new technique where these patients can be treated in the clinic non-surgically. Material and Methods. Twenty-three patients with angulated fractures were prospectively enrolled for the study from Jan 2009 to Dec 2009. After appropriately instructing the patient, an ulnar nerve block was performed at the wrist. Once the nerve block had taken effect, the fracture was manipulated and an ulna gutter 3-point moulded splint was applied in the plaster room. The reduction was then confirmed with an x-ray. The patients were seen at 3 weeks for splint removal and for long-term follow-up at least 6 months later. Results. All the patients had a completely pain-free manipulation and complete reduction was achieved in all the patients. There were no complications related to the technique. Conclusions. In the NHS with pressure on resources, the authors suggest the treatment described above of these fractures in the clinic. It is a safe, cost-effective and easily learnt technique

Background

Due to the overwhelming demand for trauma services, resulting from increasing emergency department attendances over the past decade, virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) have become the fashion to keep up with the demand and help comply with the BOA Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOAST) guidelines. In this article, we perform a systematic review asking, “How useful are VFCs?”, and what injuries and conditions can be treated safely and effectively, to help decrease patient face to face consultations. Our primary outcomes were patient satisfaction, clinical efficiency and cost analysis, and clinical outcomes.