Closed Reduction of Hand Fractures

Phalangeal and Metacarpal Fractures of the Hand: Preventing Stiffness

Fractures of the phalangeal or metacarpal bones of the hand are common. Many of these fractures are treated without surgery. However, both conservative and operative management of fractures of the hand can result in stiffness. Stiffness is the most common complication in the management of hand fractures. The key to preventing stiffness is early range of motion exercises. This article challenges many of the current treatment regimens offered to patients with the so-called unstable fractures. The evaluation of the patients' function is the primary factor that should determine the course of conservation versus operative management. X-rays do not demonstrate function and therefore act as an adjunct only to the care of the patient. The goal of treating hand fractures is to restore function. Early motion may not only improve healing but may also hasten the return to normal hand function. The tenets of how to prevent stiffness are described in this review.

Malunions of the finger metacarpals and phalanges

Many malunions of the finger metacarpals are mild and do not require or justify operative intervention. Early recreation of the fracture or osteotomy is more likely to be rewarded with favorable results than late operation. Rotational malunions of the metacarpals or proximal phalanges may be treated by transverse extra-articular transverse or step-cut osteotomies at or proximal to the malunion site. Rotational malunions of the proximal phalanges as great as 200 in the index, middle, and ring fingers and 300 in the small finger may be managed by transverse extra-articular osteotomy at the adjoining metacarpal base. Angular and combined angular and rotational deformities of the metacarpal can be corrected by closing wedge osteotomy at the malunion site, with adjustment for malrotation when necessary. Angular and combined angular and rotational deformities of the proximal phalanx may be corrected by dorsal opening or lateral opening or closing wedge osteotomy, with derotation when needed. Articular malunions may be treated by osteotomy at the fracture site, a sliding osteotomy of the fracture and its proximal supporting cortex, or extra-articular osteotomy. Each approach for articular malunions has its potential risks and benefits. The true risks of articular malunion correction may not be fully known, because of the small number of cases in each presented series and the short follow-ups. Finger motion may be improved by correction of deformity alone, and may be further enhanced by tenolysis of adjacent adhesions. Capsulolysis may be helpful in instances of adjacent joint contracture. Despite improvement of finger motion in a majority of cases, some degree of remaining stiffness is common. Stiffness is almost always a residual of the original injury rather than a complication of corrective surgery, and serves to reinforce the fact that primary fracture reduction, stabilization, and rehabilitation are usually the best deterrents to malunion and consequent impairment. Much of the best available information has been gained from retrospective cohort or case study reports that may have inherent flaws in study design that limit their statistical validity and ability to detect trends. Flaws may include heterogeneity; investigator enthusiasm; and a lack of enrollment, prospective controlled randomization, blinding, confidence interval determinations, and follow-up. The statistical ability to determine trends in past reports may be compromised. Past reports provide important information and advances, but should be interpreted with some discretion. The pen may be mightier than the scalpel. In spite of encouraging reported results, phalangeal and articular osteotomies, in particular, remain daunting procedures for most hand surgeons. Prospective, controlled randomized studies maybe difficult to achieve in the clinical setting because of the time that would be necessary to secure adequate enrollments for statistical validity andthe occurrence of "dropouts" before completion of adequate follow-up. Meta-analysis is difficult because of variations in discriminators for patient selection and clinical outcomes. Although multicenter studies have their own inherent flaws, they may represent the best future option to add a higher level of study design and validity as compared with past studies. The incorporation of subjective patient outcome instruments into future studies might also provide valuable information. Investigators should review previous reports with a goal of improving study designs and scientific methodology, confirming or contradicting past results, or adding new information.