RESUMO
Background Typically, metacarpal shaft fractures are treated with closed reduction percutaneous pinning, intramedullary nails, or plate fixation. Recently some surgeons have begun using intramedullary headless compression screws. Questions/Purposes The purpose of this study was to compare intramedullary screw fixation to K-wire fixation, which is the standard of care in a transverse metacarpal midshaft fracture, using a cadaveric model. Our hypothesis was that intramedullary screw fixation would have a biomechanical advantage (higher stiffness and peak load to failure) when compared with dual Kirschner wire fixation of transverse metacarpal shaft fractures. Methods Four-point bend testing was performed to compare stiffness and failure load values of seven paired 2nd and 3rd metacarpals instrumented with headless intramedullary compression screw fixation or Kirschner wire fixation. Similar testing was performed on 14 unpaired 4th metacarpals. Results There was no significant difference in peak load ( p = 0.60) or stiffness ( p = 0.85) between fixation groups for the 2nd and 3rd instrumented metacarpals. For the instrumented 4th metacarpals, there was no significant difference in peak load ( p = 0.14), but the stiffness was significantly greater ( p = 0.01) for the compression screw group compared with the Kirschner wire fixation. Conclusions/Clinical Relevance In this study, the load to failure was not different between the two fixation methods and likely both techniques can sustain physiologic loads needed for rehabilitation. The greater stiffness in the 4th metacarpal compression screw group may be related to the smaller canal morphology than in the 2nd and 3rd metacarpals. Larger diameter screws may be needed to obtain a better fit particularly in the 2nd and 3rd metacarpals.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Femoral neck fractures have been traditionally managed with hemiarthroplasty (HA) or conventional total hip arthroplasty (CTHA). There has been recent interest in using dual-mobility components (DMC) in total hip arthroplasty for patients with femoral neck fractures to provide increased stability and decrease the need for future revision. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature reporting on the use of DMC in the management of femoral neck fractures in geriatric patients. We included studies in which DMC were used alone and studies that included a comparison to total hip arthroplasty or HA. The outcomes of interest were postoperative dislocation, revision, and revision surgery rates. Two separate subgroup analyses were conducted. For the comparative studies, we analyzed the differences in outcomes using a random-effects model of relative risks. For the noncomparative studies, we estimated the cumulative incidence of the different outcomes. RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. Eleven noncomparative studies showed a cumulative incidence of dislocation to be 1.2% (95% confidence interval = 0.3% to 2.7%) when DMC were used alone. Subgroup analyses of the seven comparative studies yielded a relative risk of dislocation using DMC was 59% less than HA and 83% less than CTHA. DMC also compared favorably in terms of revision surgery and revision rates to HA. There was insufficient quality evidence to comment on revision surgery and revision rates when compared with CTHA in comparative studies, but among the noncomparative studies, there was a low rate of revision and revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed overall lower risk of dislocation using DMC compared with both CTHA and HA. There were also lower revision and revision surgery rates when DMC were used compared with HA. Further studies are required to elucidate cost-effectiveness and long-term outcomes of DMC in these scenarios. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-meta-analysis.
