Advertisement

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

, 20:169 | Cite as

Comparison of functional metacarpal splint and ulnar gutter splint in the treatment of fifth metacarpal neck fractures: a prospective comparative study

  • Gokhan Kaynak
  • Huseyin Botanlioglu
  • Mustafa Caliskan
  • Bedri Karaismailoglu
  • Mahmut Kursat Ozsahin
  • Soner Kocak
  • Enis Yildirim
  • Onder Aydingoz
  • Mehmet Fatih GuvenEmail author
Open Access
Research article
  • 385 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Orthopedics and biomechanics

Abstract

Background

Fifth metacarpal fractures are the most common fractures of the hand. These fractures are generally treated with conservative methods. The aim of this study was to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of two conservative treatment methods, functional metacarpal splint(FMS) and ulnar gutter splint(UGS), for the treatment of fifth metacarpal neck fractures.

Methods

A prospective comparative study was designed to assess the conservative treatment of isolated and closed stable fractures of the fifth metacarpal neck. In total, 58 patients were included in the study and were treated with FMS or UGS after fracture reduction in a consecutive order. Angulation, shortening and functional outcome (QuickDASH scores and grip strengths) were evaluated at the 2nd and 6th months.

Results

Forty patients returned for follow-up. Twenty-two patients were treated with FMS, and 18 patients were treated with UGS. The average age was 28 years (SD ± 12, range;18–43) in the FMS group and 30 years (SD ± 14, range;18–58) in the UGS group. After reduction, significant correction was achieved in both groups, but the average angulation was lower in the FMS group(16 ± 7) compared with the UGS group (21 ± 8)(p = 0.043). However, this better initial reduction in FMS group(16 ± 7) could not be maintained in the 1st month follow-up (21 ± 5) (p = 0.009). In the FMS group, the improvement in QuickDASH scores between the 2nd and 6th month follow-up was significant (p = 0.003) but not in the UGS group(p = 0.075). When the expected grip strengths were calculated, the FMS group reached the expected strength values at the 2nd month follow-up, whereas the UGS group still exhibited significantly lower grip strength at the 2nd month follow-up(p = 0.008). However, at the end of the 6th month follow-up, both groups exhibited similar reduction, QuickDASH and grip strength values.

Conclusions

In stable 5th metacarpal neck fractures, FMS is adequate to prevent loss of reduction and yields faster improvement in clinical scores with earlier gain of normal grip strength compared with UGS. However, in the long term, both FMS and UGS methods yield similar radiological and clinical outcomes. Patient comfort and compliance may be better with FMS due to less joint restriction, and these findings should be considered when deciding the treatment method.

Trial registration

ISRCTN79534571

The date of registration: 01/04/2019

Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic, II.

Keywords

Fifth metacarpal neck fracture Metacarpal functional splint Ulnar gutter splint Grip strength Metacarpal shortening Angulation 

Abbreviations

AP

Anteroposterior

DASH

Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand

FMS

Functional metacarpal splint

MCP

Metacarpophalangeal

PIP

Proximal interphalangeal

SD

Standard deviation

SH-Stip

Shortening stipulated

UGS

Ulnar gutter splint

Background

Hand fractures are the most common fractures of the body, and 18–44% of all fractures in the hand occur in the metacarpal bones [1, 2, 3, 4]. Fractures of the fifth metacarpal are the most common fractures in the hand [2], and most of them are treated conservatively via ulnar gutter splint (UGS) [5]. Closed treatment of these fractures with immobilization can lead to complications, such as malunion, extension lag, stiffness and reduced grip strength [5]. Although satisfactory clinical results were reported with the application of the traditional UGS splint, it may lead to high patient discomfort due to the limitation of wrist and finger movements [5]. Different functional splinting and soft wrap/bandage treatment methods were described to overcome the patient discomfort and the majority of the studies reported satisfactory outcomes [6, 7, 8]. Acceptable outcomes have also been reported after the treatment of distal and diaphyseal fractures of the fifth metacarpals with a well-molded functional metacarpal splint (FMS), which is less restricting and more comfortable compared with UGS [5, 9]. However, the evidence for its superiority in terms of reduction maintenance and functional outcome is still lacking.

The aim of this study is to compare UGS and FMS in the treatment of fifth metacarpal neck fractures regarding the functional and radiological results to understand whether UGS represents an overtreatment of fifth metacarpal neck fractures that are suitable for conservative management. We hypothesized that in the treatment of stable metacarpal neck fractures, FMS is adequate to prevent loss of reduction and results in a faster recovery compared with UGS.

Methods

Between 2012 and 2017, a prospective comparative study was designed for the treatment of 5th metacarpal neck fractures. Patients were recruited from the University Hospital Emergency Room (E.R.) and were treated with FMS or UGS. The power analysis, based on previous reports [10], revealed that at least 14 subjects were needed in both groups for a power of 0.8 at a significance level of 0.05. The treatment plan was applied to patients in a consecutive manner based on referral time (quasi-randomisation). The orthopedist making the intervention at the E.R. checked the last treatment performed and applied the other choice of treatment. Patients with isolated and closed neck fractures of the fifth metacarpal with no rotational deformity or associated injury between age 18 and 60 years were included in the study. Unstable, open, comminuted and intraarticular metacarpal neck fractures were not included in the study. In total, 58 patients who meet these criteria were treated and included in the study. Eighteen patients were lost to follow-up and excluded from the study; thus, 40 patients were included in the final evaluation. The local ethics committee approved the study, and informed consent was obtained from all patients.

An acceptable angulation value was set as 40° for the 5th metacarpal neck in 30° oblique views after closed reduction and splinting [11]. In fact, the actual amount of angulation can be determined with lateral radiographies. However, due to the measuring difficulty related to superposition and to prevent intraobserver variability in measurements, we preferred to use oblique radiographies that were acquired in pronation. Malrotation was assessed clinically compared with the contralateral side by lining up the fingernail in partial flexion or full flexion if possible. Although the literature is inconsistent about the benefit of the reduction, due to some aesthetic and functional concerns proposed by some authors [11, 12, 13], we applied the Jahss maneuver [14] (flexing the MP and PIP joints to 90 degrees and using the proximal phalanx to push up the metacarpal head) in all patients to obtain a reduction close to anatomical alignment [15]. We were able to achieve an acceptable reduction for all patients in the first or second attempt.

After fracture reduction, UGS was applied from the medial side of the hand and the forearm with the wrist at 30° extension, the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint at 70° flexion and the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint at full extension. Slight pressure was applied over the splint to distal volar and proximal dorsal sides of the fracture to prevent reduction loss (Fig. 1). FMS was placed according to the 3-point principle (one dorsal, two volar). The dorsal contact point was over the fracture site. One volar contact point was located over the metacarpal head, and one volar contact point was located over the metacarpal shaft. FMS does not limit the motion of MCP and wrist joints. The splint length was similar to metacarpal length (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1

Ulnar gutter splint

Fig. 2

Functional metacarpal splint

All patients were asked to attend the following follow-up visits: 1 week, 1 month, 2 months and 6 months after injury. Anteroposterior (AP) and 30° oblique X-rays were obtained following fracture reduction with a splint and at the first and sixth months without the splint. Angulation was measured on 30° oblique views by setting the upper cortex as a reference point [16] (Fig. 3a). Shortening was measured on AP view using the Shortening Stipulated (SH-Stip) technique [16] (Fig. 3b). A device was used to posture the hand to obtain a standardized 30° oblique view (Fig. 4). At the first month follow-up, patients’ splints were removed after the clinical assessment of fracture healing and the detection of callus formation on direct radiographies. After splint removal, all patients were allowed to use their hand, and grip strength exercises with a malleable stress ball were initiated for all patients. The age, gender, hand dominance, injury mechanism, and number of reduction attempts were documented for each patient (Table 1).
Fig. 3

a Method of Shortening Stipulated (SH – Stip), which is used for the measurement of shortening on AP radiography. A line was drawn through the most distal point of the heads of the neighboring 3th and 4th metacarpals. The shortening was defined as the distance from this line to the most distal point of the fractured fifth metacarpal [16]. b Method of Dorsal Cortex – oblique (DC – 30), which is used for the measurement of angulation at a 30° oblique view. The measurement lines were drawn at the most dorsal part of the metacarpal cortices [16]

Fig. 4

The device used to posture the hand to obtain a standardized 30° oblique view

Table 1

Distribution of descriptive properties

 

UGS (n = 18)

FMS (n = 22)

P

Mean Age

27.8

30.2

a0.61

Gender

Female (2.5%)

1

0

b0.74

Male (97.5%)

17

22

Fracture Mechanism

Punching a hard object (75%)

14

16

c0.71

Fall (25%)

4

6

Reduction Attempts

One (87.5%)

16

19

c0.82

Two (12.5%)

2

3

Injury Side

Dominant (85%)

15

19

c0.79

Non-dominant (15%)

3

3

UGS Ulnar gutter splint, (FMS) Functional metacarpal splint

aMann Whitney U test

bFisher’s Exact test

cPearson Chi – Square test

Functional outcomes were measured with the shorter version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) Questionnaire [17, 18]. The validated Turkish version of the QuickDASH questionnaire was used [19]. Grip strength was tested by Jamar Plus+ hand dynamometer (Patterson Medical, Illinois, USA). It is a device providing accurate results, used and recommeded by previous studies [20, 21]. Test was applied to both hands in neutral position to minimize the effect of other factors. Both hands were tested thrice at each evaluation, and the mean value of three results was calculated. Loss of grip strength was also determined by measuring the difference in mean strength value between the involved and noninvolved extremities. The evaluation was made on the basis of the assumption that the average hand grip strength for the dominant hand is 10% greater than the nondominant hand, and expected grip strengths of the hands were calculated accordingly [22]. QuickDASH and grip strength tests were applied at the first month after splint removal (second month evaluation) and sixth months after trauma. All radiological and clinical evaluations were made by the same orthopedist who was blinded to the study.

The NCSS (Number Cruncher Statistical System) 2007 (Kaysville, Utah, USA) program was used for statistical analysis. Mean, standard deviation (SD), median, frequency, ratio, and minimum and maximum values were used as descriptive statistical methods. Student t test was used for two-group comparisons of quantitative data with a normal distribution, and Mann-Whitney U test was used for two-group comparisons of data without a normal distribution. Paired sample t-test was used for intragroup comparison of parameters with a normal distribution, and a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was used for intragroup comparison of parameters without a normal distribution. In the analysis of follow-up values with a normal distribution, two-way ANOVA test was used to evaluate the variables, and the Bonferroni test was used to evaluate binary comparisons. P values were multiplied by six for Bonferroni correction. In the analysis of follow-up values without a normal distribution, the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was used to evaluate the variables, and the Friedman test was used to evaluate binary comparisons. Statistical significance was set as p < 0.05.

Results

Among 40 patients, 22 patients (55%) were treated with FMS, and 18 patients (45%) were treated with UGS. The average age was 28 years (SD ± 12, range; 18–43) in the FMS group and 30 (SD ± 14, range; 18–58) in the UGS group. In total, 86% (19) of patients in the FMS group and 83% (15) of patients in the UGS group injured their dominant hand. All patients provided a history of normal function and full motion before the fracture. No statistically significant differences in gender, age, hand dominance, injury mechanism and number of reduction attempts were noted between the two groups. The distributions of descriptive characteristics are presented in Table 1.

When the fracture angulation of both groups was analyzed, the average angulation of the fractures was similar between the groups before reduction. After reduction, significant correction was achieved in both groups, but the average angulation was lower in the FMS group (16 ± 7) compared with the UGS group (21 ± 8). (p = 0.043) In the FMS group, the initial reduction (16 ± 7), which was better compared with the UGS group, could not be maintained in the 1st month follow-up (21 ± 5). (p = 0.009) However, the reduction at the 1st month was maintained at the 6th month follow-up in the FMS and UGS groups (Table 2).
Table 2

Evaluation of periodic angular measurements and differences based on the splint method

 

UGS (n = 18)

FMS (n = 22)

P

Angulation Measurements

 Fracture

Min-Max (Median)

14–62 (33)

15–50 (31,5)

a0.710

Mean ± SD

32.11 ± 11.51

30.82 ± 10.29

 Initial reduction

Min-Max (Median)

4–30 (22,5)

7–30 (14)

a0.043*

Mean ± SD

21.00 ± 7.92

16.00 ± 7.19

 1st month

Min-Max (Median)

6–42 (25)

10–30 (20,5)

a0.170

Mean ± SD

24.06 ± 9.38

20.77 ± 5.25

 6th month

Min-Max (Median)

6–45 (25)

10–30 (22.5)

a0.211

Mean ± SD

24.44 ± 10.21

21.23 ± 5.48

 

b p

0.001**

0.001**

 

Differences

 Fracture – Initial reduction

Mean ± SD (Median)

−11.11 ± 8.55 (− 11.5)

−14.82 ± 9.91 (− 13)

d0.215

c p

0.001**

0.001**

 Fracture – 1st month

Mean ± SD (Median)

−8.06 ± 8.52 (−10)

− 10.05 ± 8.21 (− 9,5)

d0.614

c p

0.005**

0.001**

 Fracture – 6th month

Mean ± SD (Median)

−7.67 ± 9.75 (−9,5)

− 9.59 ± 9.15 (−10)

d0.558

c p

0.023*

0.001**

 Initial reduction – 1st month

Mean ± SD (Median)

3.06 ± 4.87 (3)

4.77 ± 6.10 (5)

d0.195

c p

0.098

0.009**

 Initial reduction – 6th month

Mean ± SD (Median)

3.44 ± 6.25 (3)

5.23 ± 6.68 (5)

d0,270

c p

0.191

0.009**

 1st month – 6th month

Mean ± SD (Median)

0.39 ± 2.12 (0)

0.45 ± 2.06 (0)

d0.868

c p

1.000

1.000

UGS Ulnar gutter splint, (FMS) Functional metacarpal splint, Min Minimum, Max Maximum, SD Standard deviation

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

aStudent t test

btwo-way ANOVA test

cPost Hoc: Bonferroni test

dMann Whitney U test

When the metacarpal shortness of both groups was analyzed, the average shortening of the fractures were similar between the groups before reduction. After reduction, significant correction was achieved in both groups. (p = 0.001) The length could not be maintained between the initial reduction and the 1st month in both groups, whereas the average shortening values were similar between the 1st and 6th month follow-ups in both groups, and these findings are similar to the angulation measurements (Table 3).
Table 3

Evaluation of periodic metacarpal shortness measurements and differences according to the splint method

 

UGS (n = 18)

FMS (n = 22)

d P

Metacarpal shortening measurements (mm)

 Fracture

Min-Max (Median)

2–7 (5)

2–9 (4)

0.303

Mean ± SD

4.67 ± 1.46

4.32 ± 1.46

 Initial reduction

Min-Max (Median)

1–6 (2)

1–4 (2)

0.209

Mean ± SD

2.83 ± 1.58

2.14 ± 0.94

 1st month

Min-Max (Median)

1–7 (3.5)

2–5 (3)

0.522

Mean ± SD

3.61 ± 1.69

3.27 ± 1.08

 6th month

Min-Max (Median)

1–6 (4)

2–5 (3)

0.359

Mean ± SD

3.67 ± 1.71

3.32 ± 1.04

 

e p

0.001**

0.001**

 

Differences

 Fracture – Initial reduction

Mean ± SD (Median)

−1.83 ± 1.34 (− 1)

−2.18 ± 1.47 (− 2)

0.292

f p

0.001**

0.001**

 Fracture – 1st month

Mean ± SD (Median)

−1.06 ± 1.11 (− 1)

−1.05 ± 1.17 (− 1)

0.910

f p

0.002**

0.001**

 Fracture – 6th month

Mean ± SD (Median)

−1.00 ± 1.08 (− 1)

−1.00 ± 1.15 (− 1)

0.909

f p

0.002**

0.001**

 Initial reduction – 1st month

Mean ± SD (Median)

0.78 ± 1.26 (0,5)

1.14 ± 1.08 (1)

0.271

f p

0.018*

0.001**

 Initial reduction – 6th month

Mean ± SD (Median)

0.83 ± 1.34 (0,5)

1.18 ± 1.05 (1)

0.269

f p

0,018*

0,001**

 1st month – 6th month

Mean ± SD (Median)

0.06 ± 0.54 (0)

0.05 ± 0.21 (0)

0.895

f p

0.655

0.317

UGS Ulnar gutter splint, (FMS) Functional metacarpal splint, Min Minimum, Max Maximum, SD Standard deviation

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

dMann Whitney U Test

eFriedman Test

fWilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

The QuickDASH scores of the two groups were similar at the 2nd and 6th month follow-ups. In the FMS group, the improvement in QuickDASH scores between the 2nd and 6th month follow-ups was significant (p = 0.003) but not in the UGS group (p = 0.075). When the amount of improvement between the 2nd and 6th months were compared according to the splint method, the difference was not statistically significant (Table 4).
Table 4

Evaluation of periodic QuickDASH score calculations and differences according to the splint method

 

UGS (n = 18)

FMS (n = 22)

a P

QuickDASH scores

 2nd month

Min-Max (Median)

0–36.3 (7.9)

0–34.1 (3.4)

0.760

Mean ± SD

9.77 ± 11.16

7.22 ± 9.43

 6th month

Min-Max (Median)

0–40.9 (1.7)

0–15.9 (0)

0.179

Mean ± SD

4.36 ± 9.53

2.01 ± 4.14

 

c p

0.075

0.003**

 

Differences

 2nd – 6th month

Mean ± SD (Median)

−5.41 ± 13.13 (− 1.7)

− 5.21 ± 7.43 (− 3.4)

0.846

QuickDASH The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) score, UGS Ulnar gutter splint, (FMS) Functional metacarpal splint, Min Minimum, Max Maximum, SD Standard deviation

**p < 0.01

aMann Whitney U Test

cWilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

When the grip strengths were evaluated, the average grip strengths were similar between the groups for the 2 and 6th month evaluations. Both groups achieved remarkable improvement in grip strength between the 2nd and 6th months. (p = 0.001) When the expected grip strengths were calculated according to the healthy hand grip strength of the patients, the FMS group reached the expected strength values at the 2nd month follow-up, whereas the UGS group still exhibited significantly reduced grip strength at the 2nd month follow-up. (p = 0.008) However, at the end of 6th month follow-up, both groups had grip strength values similar to their expected grip strength values, which were calculated from the healthy hand grip strength of the patients (Table 5).
Table 5

Evaluation of periodic grip strength measurements and differences according to the splint method

Grip strength measurements (lbs)

UGS (n = 18)

FMS (n = 22)

a P

Fractured side

 2nd month

Min-Max (Median)

49–107 (80)

40–106 (73)

a0.608

Mean ± SD

77.06 ± 16.16

74.32 ± 17.03

 6th month

Min-Max (Median)

53–120 (92,5)

55–112 (82,5)

a0.498

Mean ± SD

89.67 ± 18.97

85.95 ± 15.36

 

c p

0.001**

0,001**

 

2nd - 6th month increase

Mean ± SD (Median)

17.08 ± 15.47 (16.2)

17.57 ± 13.37 (15.1)

a0.892

Loss of grip strength (lbs)

 2nd month

Mean ± SD (Median)

14.12 ± 20.89 (10.6)

6.46 ± 16.28 (1.3)

a0.226

c p

0.008**

0.097

 6th month

Mean ± SD (Median)

0.84 ± 13.49 (− 4.1)

−2.24 ± 16.58 (−4.4)

a0.673

c p

0.982

0.383

UGS Ulnar gutter splint, (FMS) Functional metacarpal splint, Min Minimum, Max Maximum, SD Standard deviation

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

aMann Whitney U Test

cWilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Discussion

The objective of this study was to compare the maintenance of the reduction, functional outcomes and grip strength of adult patients who were treated with FMS or UGS for closed fifth metacarpal neck fractures. FMS provided faster improvement in clinical scores and earlier gain of normal grip strength compared to UGS with similar reduction maintenance. FMS does not limit the wrist motion or MCP joints and is easier to be performed by the physicians compared with UGS, which is more bulky and limits both wrist and MCP movements. Therefore, it is possible to say the patient adherence to FMS might be better due to increased patient comfort.

It is important to maintain the reduction in metacarpal fractures to avoid the reduced grip strength and pseudoclawing at the MCP joint caused by excessive volar angulation [11, 13]. The studies by Konradsen et al. and Jones reported improvement in fracture angulation with a functional cast, which allowed free motion of the wrist and finger joints, to treat metacarpal shaft and neck fractures [23, 24]. Debnath et al. also demonstrated the effectiveness of Barton’s short hand cast in maintaining angulation for reduced metacarpal shaft fractures [9]. However, none of these studies evaluated the functional outcomes of the patients. Kuokkanen et al. compared splinting after reduction and functional bandage without reduction in the treatment of 5th metacarpal neck fractures. They found that angulation generally remained at the same level in both groups throughout the follow-ups. Despite similar functional results at the 3-month follow-up, grip strength and range of motion were better in the bandage group at 4 weeks. The elastic bandage group had an average 42 degrees (range, 20–60) angulation, whereas the reduction/splinting group had an average 30 degrees (range, 10–50) angulation. High displacement values in the reduction/splinting group makes it difficult to observe possible benefits of a good reduction compared with the elastic bandage group. They also did not use a validated outcome measure, preventing the evaluation of true functionality [25].

Similar to angulation, excessive shortening was also thought to be responsible for functional impairment at the MCP joint by an anatomical study [26]. However, its clinical relevance is not sufficiently reviewed, and Lumplesch et al. reported no extension deficit for shortening up to 6 mm [27]. Aaken et al. also reported no extension lag with shortening of up to 5 mm [28]. In our study, after initial reduction and splint application, the angulation measurements were better in patients treated with FMS. The difficulty in applying UGS potentially prevented the maintenance of the initial reduction during the splint application. However, at the 1st month follow-up, reduction loss was more significant in the FMS group compared with the UGS group. At the 1st and 6th month follow-up, average angulation values were similar between groups and in between the acceptable range. Therefore, better reduction capacity of FMS at initial application could not be maintained throughout the follow-ups and did not provide any advantage for improved reduction compared with the UGS method. Both methods resulted in similar angulation and shortening values at the end of the 6th month follow-up. Maintenance of the angulation and length of the 5th metacarpal between the 1st and 6th month follow-ups in both groups reveals that adequate healing was achieved at the 1st month, and splint usage is no longer needed.

The clinical outcomes of the treatment methods can be reported in numerous ways like satisfaction rates, return to work percentages and patient reported outcome measurements. Muller et al. compared the satisfaction rates and the return to work of the patients treated with cast or bandage and they didn’t detect any significant difference [8]. As a validated hand outcome measurement, QuickDASH has been used to discern disabilities from musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and consists of three subscales including disability/symptom, and work and sports/performing arts [18, 19, 29]. QuickDASH was used in numerous studies to evaluate the treatment results for hand injuries but the reports with QuickDASH measurements of metacarpal injuries are few [15, 28, 30, 31]. Hofmeister et al. compared two different casting methods in the treatment of fifth metacarpal neck fractures and they didn’t detect any difference between the DASH scores. In our study, QuickDASH score improvement between 2nd and 6th month follow-up was more significant in the FMS group, indicating that FMS might be related to better functional improvement. However, the average QuickDASH scores at the end of 6th month follow-up were similar in both groups, demonstrating that similar and satisfying functional outcomes were achieved with both methods.

Early regain of grip strength is an important parameter, especially for manual laborers. In a study by Davison et al., hand-based thermoplastic splints resulted in improved early range of motion and grip strength in pediatric patients compared with UGS in the treatment of 5th metacarpal neck fractures [32]. In our study, despite similar 6th month follow-up values, the patients treated with FMS exhibited earlier regain of the normal grip strength.

At present, there is no consensus on the optimal management of 5th metacarpal neck fractures. Advantages of the FMS treatment method include its efficacy, ease of application, freedom of wrist and IP joint motion, early regain of grip strength, satisfactory functional scores and improved patient tolerance. Active and passive motion of the distal interphalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints of the ring and small fingers are allowed, therefore permitting daily activities, such as eating, writing, and grasping.

This study has several limitations. Although the study design was prospective, it was not randomized or controlled. Eighteen patients (31%) did not return for routine evaluations and were lost to follow-up. We think the most probable reason behind this high rate is the great healing and functional capacity of 5th metacarpal neck fractures especially in younger population. The study group didn’t include patients older than 58 years old, so it is not possible to generalize our results to elder population. Possible intraobserver variability for radiological and functional measurements might also be considered as another limitation.

Conclusions

Despite the greater reduction loss at 1st month, FMS is adequate in the maintenance of acceptable reduction and may provide faster improvement in clinical scores and earlier gain of normal grip strength compared with UGS. However, at the 6th month follow-up, no superiority was detected between FMS and UGS methods. FMS restricts less joints and provides better functionality compared with UGS, and this information should be considered when deciding the treatment method.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

None.

Availability of data and materials

Some of the data generated or analysed in this study are included in this published article. The rest of the data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

HB, GK, OA and MFG designed the study. MFG directed the study. SK completed the clinical and radiological evaluations. MFG, HB, BK, MKO, MC and EY participated in manuscript preparation. All authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis and manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Istanbul University Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty Clinical Research Ethics Committee. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Aitken S, Court-Brown CM. The epidemiology of sports-related fractures of the hand. Injury. 2008;39(12):1377–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Onselen EBH, Karim RB, Hage J, Ritt MJPF. Prevalence and distribution of hand fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2003;28 B(5):491–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gudmundsen TE, Borgen L. Fractures of the fifth metacarpal. Acta Radiol. 2009;50(3):296–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mohammed R, Farook MZ, Newman K. Percutaneous elastic intramedullary nailing of metacarpal fractures: surgical technique and clinical results study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2011;6(1):37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Al-Qattan MM. Outcome of conservative management of spiral/long oblique fractures of the metacarpal shaft of the fingers using a palmar wrist splint and immediate mobilisation of the fingers. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2008;33(6):723–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Aaken J, Fusetti C, Luchina S, Brunetti S, Beaulieu JY, Gayet-Ageron A, 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. 2016;136(1):135–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gulabi D, Avci CC, Cecen GS, Bekler HI, Saglam F, Merih E. A comparison of the functional and radiological results of Paris plaster cast and ulnar gutter splint in the conservative treatment of fractures of the fifth metacarpal. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(7):1167–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muller MGS, Poolman RW, van Hoogstraten MJ, Steller EP. 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. 2003;123(10):534–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Debnath UK, Nassab RS, Oni JA, Davis TRC. A prospective study of the treatment of fractures of the little finger metacarpal shaft with a short hand cast. J Hand Surg Am. 2004;29 B(3):214–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parmaksizoglu AS, Cetinkaya E, Basilgan S, Yeniocak S, Kabukcuoglu YS, Kilic A, et al. Outcomes of four distinctive fixation methods in the conservative treatment of fifth metacarpal neck fractures. Turkish J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2012;18(2):167–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Birndorf MS, Daley R, Greenwald DP. Metacarpal fracture angulation decreases flexor mechanical efficiency in human hands. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;99(4):1079–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strub B, Schindele S, Sonderegger J, Sproedt J, Von Campe A, Gruenert JG. Intramedullary splinting or conservative treatment for displaced fractures of the little finger metacarpal neck? A prospective study. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2010;35(9):725–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ali A, Hamman J, Mass DP. The biomechanical effects of angulated boxer’s fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 1999;24(4):835–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jahss S. Fractures of the metacarpals: a new method of reduction and immobilization. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1938;20(1):178–86.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hofmeister EP, Kim J, Shin AY. Comparison of 2 methods of immobilization of fifth metacarpal neck fractures: a prospective randomized study. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(8):1362–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sletten IN, Nordsletten L, Hjorthaug GA, Hellund JC, Holme I, Kvernmo HD. Assessment of volar angulation and shortening in 5th metacarpal neck fractures: an inter- and intra-observer validity and reliability study. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2013;38(6):658–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C, Group TUEC. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29:602–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gummesson C, Ward MM, Atroshi I. 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. 2006;7:44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dogan SK, Ay S, Evcik D, Baser O. Adaptation of Turkish version of the questionnaire quick disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand (quick DASH) in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Clin Rheumatol. 2011;30(2):185–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Trampisch US, Franke J, Jedamzik N, Hinrichs T, Platen P. Optimal jamar dynamometer handle position to assess maximal isometric hand grip strength in epidemiological studies. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37(11):2368–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Komurcu M, Kürklü M, Ozturan KE, Mahirogullari M, Basbozkurt M. Early and delayed treatment of dorsal transscaphoid perilunate fracture-dislocations. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22(8):535–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Petersen P, Petrick M, Connor H, Conklin D. Grip strength and hand dominance: challenging the 10% rule. Am J Occup Ther Off Publ Am Occup Ther Assoc. 1989;43(7):444–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Konradsen L, Nielsen PT, Albrecht-Beste E. Functional treatment of metacarpal fractures: 100 randomized cases with or without fixation. Acta Orthop. 1990;61(6):531–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jones AR. A custom brace for treatment of angulated fifth metacarpal fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 1996;21(2):319–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuokkanen HOM, Mulari-Keränen SK, Niskanen RO, Haapala JK, Korkala OL. 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. 1999;33(3):315–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Strauch RJ, Rosenwasser MP, Lunt JG. Metacarpal shaft fractures: the effect of shortening on the extensor tendon mechanism. J Hand Surg Am. 1998;23(3):519–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lumplesch R, Zilch H, Friedebold G. Fractures of the metacarpal bones II to V-conservative and surgical treatment. Unfallchirurgie. 1985;11(3):115–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Aaken J, Kämpfen S, Berli M, Fritschy D, Della Santa D, Fusetti C. Outcome of boxer’s fractures treated by a soft wrap and buddy taping: a prospective study. Hand. 2007;2(4):212–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN, Amadio P, Bombardier C, Cole D, et al. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A. 2005;87(5):1038–46.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sletten IN, Nordsletten L, Husby T, Ødegaard RA, Hellund JC, Kvernmo HD. Isolated, extra-articular neck and shaft fractures of the 4th and 5th metacarpals: a comparison of transverse and bouquet (intra-medullary) pinning in 67 patients. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2012;37(5):387–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nalbantoglu U, Gereli A, Ucar BY, Kocaoglu B, Dogan T. Treatment of metacarpal fractures with open reduction and low-profile plate and screw fixation. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2008;42(5):303–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Davison PG, Boudreau N, Burrows R, Wilson KL, Bezuhly M. Forearm-based ulnar gutter versus hand-based thermoplastic splint for pediatric metacarpal neck fractures: a blinded, randomized trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(3):908–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gokhan Kaynak
    • 1
  • Huseyin Botanlioglu
    • 1
  • Mustafa Caliskan
    • 2
  • Bedri Karaismailoglu
    • 3
  • Mahmut Kursat Ozsahin
    • 1
  • Soner Kocak
    • 1
  • Enis Yildirim
    • 4
  • Onder Aydingoz
    • 1
  • Mehmet Fatih Guven
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyIstanbul University – Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa Medical FacultyIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyIstanbul Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Training and Research HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyAyancik State HospitalSinopTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyKonak HospitalSakaryaTurkey

Personalised recommendations