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

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.