{"title":"Preliminary Outcomes of Base Metacarpal Fractures Surgical Management","authors":"Emad Esmat, Eslam Tabl, Samir Monib, Ahmed EL DIN","doi":"10.21608/bjas.2023.232964.1239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Base Surgery for metacarpal fractures is complicated by the wide variety of treatment options. This research fills a gap in the literature by contrasting the two treatment options for unstable base metacarpal fractures: fixation and temporary arthrodesis. Methods Patients with closed metacarpal fractures who satisfied certain criteria participated in this randomised experiment at a university hospital. Subjects were randomly allocated to either Group A (fixation methods) or Group B. (temporary arthrodesis). Information about the patients' demographics, preoperative evaluations, surgical procedures, and recovery schedules were documented. Subjective and objective ratings, imaging studies, and objective assessments of function all contributed to the final tally. FindingsFifteen participants were included in the research overall. The two groups were similar to one another demographically. Differences emerged between the groups with respect to the length of the operation, the quantity of C-arm pictures, and the time it took to achieve union. Total Active Motion (TAM) and other objective evaluation indicators showed that both groups performed similarly. The occurrence of complications was similar across the two groups. Results from treating unstable base metacarpal fractures with either fixation or temporary arthrodesis were positive, the authors write. The two groups were comparable in terms of demographics, postoperative functional evaluations, and complication rates.roups.","PeriodicalId":8745,"journal":{"name":"Benha Journal of Applied Sciences","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Benha Journal of Applied Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/bjas.2023.232964.1239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Base Surgery for metacarpal fractures is complicated by the wide variety of treatment options. This research fills a gap in the literature by contrasting the two treatment options for unstable base metacarpal fractures: fixation and temporary arthrodesis. Methods Patients with closed metacarpal fractures who satisfied certain criteria participated in this randomised experiment at a university hospital. Subjects were randomly allocated to either Group A (fixation methods) or Group B. (temporary arthrodesis). Information about the patients' demographics, preoperative evaluations, surgical procedures, and recovery schedules were documented. Subjective and objective ratings, imaging studies, and objective assessments of function all contributed to the final tally. FindingsFifteen participants were included in the research overall. The two groups were similar to one another demographically. Differences emerged between the groups with respect to the length of the operation, the quantity of C-arm pictures, and the time it took to achieve union. Total Active Motion (TAM) and other objective evaluation indicators showed that both groups performed similarly. The occurrence of complications was similar across the two groups. Results from treating unstable base metacarpal fractures with either fixation or temporary arthrodesis were positive, the authors write. The two groups were comparable in terms of demographics, postoperative functional evaluations, and complication rates.roups.
背景:掌骨骨折的基底手术因治疗方案的多样性而变得复杂。本研究通过对比不稳定基底掌骨骨折的两种治疗方案:固定术和临时关节置换术,填补了文献空白。方法 符合特定标准的闭合性掌骨骨折患者参加了在一家大学医院进行的随机实验。受试者被随机分配到 A 组(固定方法)或 B 组(临时关节置换术)。实验记录了患者的人口统计学信息、术前评估、手术过程和恢复时间表。主观和客观评分、影像学检查和对功能的客观评估都有助于得出最终结果。研究结果共有 15 人参与了研究。从人口统计学角度来看,两组参与者的情况相似。两组在手术时间长短、C型臂照片数量以及达到结合所需的时间方面存在差异。总活动度(TAM)和其他客观评价指标显示,两组的表现相似。两组的并发症发生率相似。作者写道,采用固定或临时关节置换术治疗不稳定基底掌骨骨折的结果是积极的。两组在人口统计学、术后功能评估和并发症发生率方面具有可比性。