z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Bennett’s Fracture Repair—Which Method Results in the Best Functional Outcome? A Retrospective Cohort Analysis and Systematic Literature Review of Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes
Author(s) -
Benjamin Langridge,
Michelle Griffin,
Mo Akhavani,
Peter E. M. Butler
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of hand and microsurgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 0974-6897
pISSN - 0974-3227
DOI - 10.1055/s-0040-1703412
Subject(s) - medicine , fixation (population genetics) , retrospective cohort study , surgery , percutaneous , dash , kirschner wire , internal fixation , cohort , population , environmental health , computer science , operating system
Surgical fixation of Bennett’s fracture of the thumb is critical to prevent functional impairment; however, there is no consensus on the optimal fixation method. We performed an 11-year retrospective cohort analysis and a systematic literature review to determine long-term patient-reported outcomes following Bennett’s fracture fixation. Retrospective cohort analysis identified 49 patients treated with Kirschner (K)-wire fixation, 85% returned to unrestricted movement during hand therapy. Forty-seven patients (96%) completed the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) questionnaires at a mean of 5.55 years from injury, with a mean score of 7.75. Systematic literature review identified 14 studies with a cumulative 541 patients. Fixation included open or percutaneous methods utilizing K-wires, tension band wiring, lag screws, T-Plates, external fixation, and arthroscopic screw fixation. Functional outcomes reported included DASH, quickDASH (qDASH), and visual analogue scores. Superficial wound infection occurred in 4 to 8% of percutaneous K-wire fixation. Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) methods were associated with a 4 to 20% rate of reintervention and 5 to 28% rate of persistent paresthesia. Closed reduction with percutaneous K-wire fixation should be the first choice surgical method, given excellent, long-term functional outcomes, and low risk of complications. ORIF should be utilized where closed reduction is not achievable; however, the current evidence does not support one method of ORIF above another.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here