Secondary Procedures after Closed Reduction Percutaneous Pinning versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation of Phalanx Fractures: A Large Database Analysis.

IF 0.5 Q4 SURGERY
Thompson Zhuang, Ellis Berns, Erin Hale, Ines Lin, Andrew D Sobel
{"title":"Secondary Procedures after Closed Reduction Percutaneous Pinning versus Open Reduction Internal Fixation of Phalanx Fractures: A Large Database Analysis.","authors":"Thompson Zhuang, Ellis Berns, Erin Hale, Ines Lin, Andrew D Sobel","doi":"10.1142/S2424835525500341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> While functional and patient-reported outcomes are similar for closed reduction percutaneous pinning (CRPP) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of phalanx fractures, controversy exists regarding optimal fixation choice. In this study, we tested the null hypotheses that there is no difference in (1) percentage of patients undergoing secondary procedures within 2 years, (2) therapy utilisation and (3) total costs following CRPP and ORIF of phalanx fractures. <b>Methods:</b> Using an administrative claims database, we identified patients undergoing CRPP or ORIF of phalanx fractures from 2011 to 2020. Secondary procedures assessed within 2 years after CRPP or ORIF included phalanx osteotomy, tenolysis, irrigation and debridement, metacarpophalangeal joint arthrodesis and interphalangeal joint arthrodesis or arthroplasty. We calculated therapy utilisation at 6-month intervals after surgery and total cost of care at 90 days post-procedure. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between choice of surgical fixation and incidence of secondary procedures, adjusting for age, sex, region, insurance and Elixhauser comorbidity index. <b>Results:</b> The composite incidence of secondary procedures was 3.1% after CRPP and 4.7% after ORIF (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Within 2 years after CRPP, fewer patients had tenolysis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-0.63]), interphalangeal joint arthrodesis (OR = 0.51 [95% CI: 0.41-0.62]) or interphalangeal joint arthroplasty procedures (OR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.38-0.87]). Patients who underwent CRPP had increased therapy utilisation, but similar 90-day total cost of care. <b>Conclusions:</b> CRPP for phalanx fractures is associated with a lower incidence of subsequent procedures compared to ORIF. Further studies are needed to compare CRPP with ORIF for phalanx fractures while accounting for specific fracture patterns as confounders, which was a limitation of this study. <b>Level of Evidence:</b> Level III (Therapeutic).</p>","PeriodicalId":51689,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Surgery-Asian-Pacific Volume","volume":" ","pages":"293-298"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Surgery-Asian-Pacific Volume","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424835525500341","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: While functional and patient-reported outcomes are similar for closed reduction percutaneous pinning (CRPP) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of phalanx fractures, controversy exists regarding optimal fixation choice. In this study, we tested the null hypotheses that there is no difference in (1) percentage of patients undergoing secondary procedures within 2 years, (2) therapy utilisation and (3) total costs following CRPP and ORIF of phalanx fractures. Methods: Using an administrative claims database, we identified patients undergoing CRPP or ORIF of phalanx fractures from 2011 to 2020. Secondary procedures assessed within 2 years after CRPP or ORIF included phalanx osteotomy, tenolysis, irrigation and debridement, metacarpophalangeal joint arthrodesis and interphalangeal joint arthrodesis or arthroplasty. We calculated therapy utilisation at 6-month intervals after surgery and total cost of care at 90 days post-procedure. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between choice of surgical fixation and incidence of secondary procedures, adjusting for age, sex, region, insurance and Elixhauser comorbidity index. Results: The composite incidence of secondary procedures was 3.1% after CRPP and 4.7% after ORIF (p < 0.001). Within 2 years after CRPP, fewer patients had tenolysis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-0.63]), interphalangeal joint arthrodesis (OR = 0.51 [95% CI: 0.41-0.62]) or interphalangeal joint arthroplasty procedures (OR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.38-0.87]). Patients who underwent CRPP had increased therapy utilisation, but similar 90-day total cost of care. Conclusions: CRPP for phalanx fractures is associated with a lower incidence of subsequent procedures compared to ORIF. Further studies are needed to compare CRPP with ORIF for phalanx fractures while accounting for specific fracture patterns as confounders, which was a limitation of this study. Level of Evidence: Level III (Therapeutic).

指骨骨折闭合复位经皮钉钉与开放复位内固定后的二次手术:大型数据库分析。
背景:虽然指骨骨折的闭合复位经皮钉钉(CRPP)和开放复位内固定(ORIF)的功能和患者报告的结果相似,但关于最佳固定选择存在争议。在这项研究中,我们检验了零假设,即在(1)2年内接受二次手术的患者百分比,(2)治疗利用率和(3)指骨骨折CRPP和ORIF后的总成本没有差异。方法:使用行政索赔数据库,我们确定了2011年至2020年期间接受CRPP或ORIF治疗的指骨骨折患者。CRPP或ORIF术后2年内评估的二次手术包括指骨截骨、肌腱松解、冲洗和清创、掌指关节融合术和指间关节融合术或关节置换术。我们计算了手术后6个月的治疗利用率和手术后90天的总护理费用。在调整年龄、性别、地区、保险和Elixhauser合并症指数后,采用多变量logistic回归模型评估手术固定选择与二次手术发生率之间的关系。结果:CRPP术后二次手术的综合发生率为3.1%,ORIF术后为4.7% (p < 0.001)。CRPP术后2年内,发生肌腱松解(优势比[OR] = 0.57[95%可信区间(CI): 0.52-0.63])、指间关节融合术(OR = 0.51 [95% CI: 0.41-0.62])或指间关节置换术(OR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.38-0.87])的患者较少。接受CRPP治疗的患者增加了治疗利用率,但90天总护理成本相似。结论:与ORIF相比,CRPP治疗指骨骨折的后续手术发生率较低。需要进一步的研究来比较CRPP和ORIF治疗指骨骨折,同时考虑到特定的骨折类型作为混杂因素,这是本研究的局限性。证据等级:III级(治疗性)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
304
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信