Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fifth metacarpal neck fractures treated with soft wrap/buddy taping compared to reduction and casting: results of a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial

  • Handsurgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 07 September 2016

Abstract

Introduction

The majority of fifth metacarpal neck fractures (boxers fracture) are treated conservatively without surgery. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, multicenter trial was to determine if the outcomes of soft wrap and buddy taping (SW) was noninferior to reduction and cast (RC) in boxer’s fracture with palmar angulation ≤70° and no rotational deformity.

Materials and methods

Sixty-eight patients with similar characteristics were prospectively enrolled and randomized at four institutions. Our primary outcome was measured by the shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (quickDASH) questionnaire at 4 months. Noninferiority was claimed if there was no more than +10 points difference in the quickDASH. Other secondary radiographic and clinical outcomes were measured.

Results

At 4 months, mean difference in the quickDASH between the two groups was −10.4 (95 % confidence interval, −27.0; +6.2) which was under the pre-specified margin. There was no significant difference between both groups’ secondary outcomes of pain, satisfaction with the esthetic appearance, mobility of the metacarpophalangeal-joint at flexion and extension, or power grip. Increased fracture angulation, as measured on follow-up radiographs, was not significantly different between both groups. The degree of palmar fracture angulation was not related to work leave or profession. Duration of time off from work was 11 days shorter in SW compared to RC (P = 0.03).

Conclusion

This study supports the use of soft wrap and buddy taping for treatment of boxer’s fracture with palmar angulation ≤70° and no rotational deformity. Although there was no statistical difference in satisfaction with the esthetic appearance, the patient must be willing to accept the loss of the “knuckle” with this treatment method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hunter JM, Cowen NJ (1970) Fifth metacarpal fractures in a compensation clinic population. A report on one hundred and thirty-three cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52(6):1159–1165

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Poolman RW, Goslings JC, Lee JB, Statius Muller M, Steller EP, Struijs PA (2005) Conservative treatment for closed fifth (small finger) metacarpal neck fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD003210. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003210.pub3

  3. Beredjiklian PK (2009) Small finger metacarpal neck fractures. J Hand Surg Am 34(8):1524–1526. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.06.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Braakman M, Oderwald EE, Haentjens MH (1998) Functional taping of fractures of the 5th metacarpal results in a quicker recovery. Injury 29(1):5–9

  5. van Aaken J, Kampfen S, Berli M, Fritschy D, Della Santa D, Fusetti C (2007) Outcome of boxer’s fractures treated by a soft wrap and buddy taping: a prospective study. Hand (N Y) 2(4):212–217. doi:10.1007/s11552-007-9054-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hansen PB, Hansen TB (1998) The treatment of fractures of the ring and little metacarpal necks. A prospective randomized study of three different types of treatment. J Hand Surg Br 23(2):245–247

  7. Statius Muller MG, Poolman RW, van Hoogstraten MJ, Steller EP (2003) Immediate mobilization gives good results in boxer’s fractures with volar angulation up to 70 degrees: a prospective randomized trial comparing immediate mobilization with cast immobilization. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 123(10):534–537. doi:10.1007/s00402-003-0580-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hofmeister EP, Kim J, Shin AY (2008) Comparison of 2 methods of immobilization of fifth metacarpal neck fractures: a prospective randomized study. J Hand Surg Am 33(8):1362–1368. doi:10.1308/003588410X12628812458176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jones R, Burdett S, Jefferies M, Guha AR (2010) Treating the boxer’s fracture in Wales: a postal survey. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 92(3):236–239. doi:10.1308/003588410X12628812458176 (quiz 239)

  10. Smith KR (2010) Comment on: boxer’s fracture. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 92(5):449. doi:10.1308/003588410X12699663904033

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Breddam M, Hansen TB (1995) Subcapital fractures of the fourth and fifth metacarpals treated without splinting and reposition. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 29(3):269–270

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bansal R, Craigen MA (2007) Fifth metacarpal neck fractures: is follow-up required? J Hand Surg Eur 32(1):69–73. doi:10.1016/j.jhsb.2006.09.021

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gamble D, Jenkins PJ, Edge MJ, Gilmour A, Anthony IC, Nugent M, Rymaszewski LA (2015) Satisfaction and functional outcome with “self-care” for the management of fifth metacarpal fractures. Hand. doi:10.1007/s11552-015-9749-8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Totty W, Gilula L (1992) Imaging the hand and wrist. In: The traumatized hand and wrist. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 1–19

  15. King JC, Nettrour JF, Beckenbaugh RD (1999) Traction reduction and cast immobilization for the treatment of boxer’s fractures. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg 3(3):174–180

  16. Jahss S (1938) Fractures of the metacarpals: a new method of reduction and immobilization. J Bone Joint Surg 20:178–186

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gummesson C, Ward MM, Atroshi I (2006) The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7:44. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-7-44

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Haefeli M, Elfering A (2006) Pain assessment. Eur Spine J 15(Suppl 1):S17–S24. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-1044-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Braakman M (1996) Normal radiographic angulation in the 4th and 5th metacarpal: a reference guide. Eur J Radiol 22(1):38–41

  20. Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ (2009) Measuring shoulder function: a systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Rheum 61(5):623–632. doi:10.1002/art.24396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C (2001) Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther 14(2):128–146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ford DJ, Ali MS, Steel WM (1989) Fractures of the fifth metacarpal neck: is reduction or immobilisation necessary? J Hand Surg Br 14(2):165–167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Holst-nielsen F (1976) Subcapital fractures of the four ulnar metacarpal bones. Hand 8(3):290–293

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ali A, Hamman J, Mass DP (1999) The biomechanical effects of angulated boxer’s fractures. J Hand Surg Am 24(4):835–844

  25. Birndorf MS, Daley R, Greenwald DP (1997) Metacarpal fracture angulation decreases flexor mechanical efficiency in human hands. Plast Reconstr Surg 99(4):1079–1083 (discussion 1084–5)

  26. Faraj AA, Davis TR (1999) Percutaneous intramedullary fixation of metacarpal shaft fractures. J Hand Surg Br 24(1):76–79

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lamraski G, Monsaert A, De Maeseneer M, Haentjens P (2006) Reliability and validity of plain radiographs to assess angulation of small finger metacarpal neck fractures: human cadaveric study. J Orthopaed Res 24(1):37–45. doi:10.1002/jor.20025

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sletten IN, Nordsletten L, Hjorthaug GA, Hellund JC, Holme I, Kvernmo HD (2013) Assessment of volar angulation and shortening in 5th metacarpal neck fractures: an inter- and intra-observer validity and reliability study. J Hand Surg Eur 38(6):658–666. doi:10.1177/1753193412461582

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Abdon P, Muhlow A, Stigsson L, Thorngren KG, Werner CO, Westman L (1984) Subcapital fractures of the fifth metacarpal bone. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 103(4):231–234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Arafa M, Haines J, Noble J, Carden D (1986) Immediate mobilization of fractures of the neck of the fifth metacarpal. Injury 17(4):277–278

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kuokkanen HO, Mulari-Keranen SK, Niskanen RO, Haapala JK, Korkala OL (1999) Treatment of subcapital fractures of the fifth metacarpal bone: a prospective randomised comparison between functional treatment and reposition and splinting. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 33(3):315–317

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pace GI, Gendelberg D, Taylor KF (2015) The effect of closed reduction of small finger metacarpal neck fractures on the ultimate angular deformity. J Hand Surg Am 40(8):1582–1585. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.05.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Hospital of Geneva (HUG), Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland

    Jan van Aaken, Jean-Yves Beaulieu & Angèle Gayet-Ageron

  2. Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Bellinzona, Switzerland

    Cesare Fusetti & Stefania Brunetti

  3. Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Locarno, Switzerland

    Stefano Luchina

  4. Naval Medical Center in San Diego, San Diego, USA

    Kathryn Hanna & Eric Hofmeister

  5. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA

    Alexander Y. Shin

Authors
  1. Jan van Aaken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cesare Fusetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefano Luchina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefania Brunetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jean-Yves Beaulieu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Angèle Gayet-Ageron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kathryn Hanna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alexander Y. Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Eric Hofmeister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan van Aaken.

Ethics declarations

All authors disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) this work. The study was approved by the ethical committee/Institutional Review Board of the four participating centers and all patients underwent an informed consent prior to entering the trial.

Conflict of interest

All authors disclose any financial and personal relationship with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Aaken, J., Fusetti, C., Luchina, S. et al. Fifth metacarpal neck fractures treated with soft wrap/buddy taping compared to reduction and casting: results of a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136, 135–142 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2361-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2361-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation