Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXIX | Pages 228 - 228
1 Sep 2012
MacGregor R Abdul-Jabar H Sala M Al-Yassari G Perez J
Full Access

We completed a retrospective case study of 66 consecutive isolated closed 5. th. metacarpal neck fractures that presented to our Hospital between September 2009 and March 2010. Their management was established by referring to outpatient letters and A&E notes. The aim of the study was to establish if it would be more efficient and cost effective for these patients to be managed in A&E review clinic without compromising patient care. Of these 66 patients, 56 were males and the mean age was 26 years (12–88 years). Four fractures were not followed up at our Trust, six did not attend their outpatient appointment, one did not require follow up. Of the remaining 55, reviewed at a fracture clinic, all but two were managed conservatively, with 47% requiring one outpatient appointment only. The cost of a new patient Orthopaedic outpatient appointment is £180 with subsequent follow up appointments costing £80 per visit, in contrast to an A&E review clinic appointment at a cost of £60. In view of the small percentage in need of surgical intervention: we highlight the possibility for these patients to be managed solely in the A&E department with a management plan made at the A&E review clinic with an option to refer patients if necessary, and the provision of management guidelines and care quality assurance measures. This, we believe, would maintain care quality for these patients, improve efficiency of fracture clinics and decrease cost. We calculate that even if only all the patients that required one follow up appointment could have been managed by A&E alone then the saving to the local health commissioning body over a six month period from within our trust alone, would have been £3000, which across all trusts providing acute trauma services within the NHS would amount to a substantial saving nationwide


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXIX | Pages 227 - 227
1 Sep 2012
Conroy E Flannery O McNulty J Thompson J Kelly E
Full Access

Introduction. Antegrade K wiring of the fifth metacarpal for treatment of displaced metacarpal neck fractures is a well recognized surgical procedure. However it is not without complication and injury to the dorsal cutaneous branch of the ulnar nerve has been reported in up to 15% of cases. Methods. We performed a cadaver study to determine the proximity of this nerve to the K wire insertion point at the base of the fifth metacarpal. K wires were percutaneously inserted under image intensification in sixteen cadaver hands and advanced into the head of the metacarpal. Wires were then cut and bent outside the skin. This was then followed by meticulous dissection of the ulnar nerve from proximal to distal. A number of measurements were taken to identify the distance from the insertion point of the K wire to each branch of this nerve. Results. The distance from the insertion point at the base of the fifth metacarpal to the dorsal component of the nerve averaged 5.6 mm (range 1mm–12mm) and from the volar component was 6 mm (range 1mm–10mm). The heel of the wire was touching the nerve in five cases. Conclusion. Our findings highlight the importance of making a small incision and bluntly dissecting to bone at the base of the fifth metacarpal to protect the nerve. In addition, use of a tissue protector is vital when drilling the 2mm hole at the base of the fifth metacarpal. We have confirmed that the dorsal cutaneous branch of the ulnar nerve is vulnerable during insertion of an antegrade intramedullary K wire for treatment of neck of fifth metacarpal fractures