We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Open reduction and internal fixation versus closed reduction and percutaneous fixation in the treatment of Bennett fractures: A systematic review.
Injury 2019 August
PURPOSE: Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of Bennett fractures is increasingly preferred over closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRIF) in an attempt to prevent the development of post-traumatic arthrosis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether the preference for ORIF is justified based on the available literature regarding functional outcome and complications after surgery.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of science, and Google scholar. Duplicates were removed and title and abstract were screened after which full text articles were analysed. The reference lists of selected articles were screened for additional relevant studies. Study characteristics were recorded and methodological qualities were assessed after which data was extracted from the included articles. The Eaton-Littler score for post-traumatic arthrosis (primary outcome) on follow-up X-rays was used as primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were Grip strength, Pinch strength, persistent pain, fixation failure, functional impairment, infection and surgery time.
RESULTS: Ten studies were included; three retrospective comparative studies and seven retrospective case series. Of the 215 patients in these studies, 138 had been treated using an open technique and 77 by a closed percutaneous technique. The pooled rate of post-traumatic arthrosis was 57.5% (26.6-85.5) in the ORIF group versus 26.1% (3.9-59.0) in the CRIF group. Mean surgical operation time was 71.9 min for ORIF and 30.2 min for percutaneous patients. Fixation failure was significantly more often seen in the ORIF patients, 8.2% (0.7-22.8) vs. 2.9% (0.8-9.1), Risk Ratio 1.132 (0.01-176.745); p = 0.048. Infection was only seen in 5 CRIF patients. Persistent pain was seen in 32.9% (0.6-83.1) in ORIF patients versus 22.3% (8.1-41.1) in the CRIF patients. The pooled means Grip strength was 48.3 kg (95% CI; 39.7-56.9) versus 43.4 kg (95% CI; 22.9-63.8) for ORIF and CRPF, respectively. Functional impairment was similar between the two groups, 1.4% (0.1-4.4) vs 1.8% (0.1-5.7) respectively.
CONCLUSION: The analysed data do not confirm ORIF to prevent post-traumatic arthrosis, secondly more fixation failure and pain was seen in the ORIF group. The pooled data show percutaneous fixation to be preferable over ORIF in the surgical treatment of Bennett fractures.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of science, and Google scholar. Duplicates were removed and title and abstract were screened after which full text articles were analysed. The reference lists of selected articles were screened for additional relevant studies. Study characteristics were recorded and methodological qualities were assessed after which data was extracted from the included articles. The Eaton-Littler score for post-traumatic arthrosis (primary outcome) on follow-up X-rays was used as primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were Grip strength, Pinch strength, persistent pain, fixation failure, functional impairment, infection and surgery time.
RESULTS: Ten studies were included; three retrospective comparative studies and seven retrospective case series. Of the 215 patients in these studies, 138 had been treated using an open technique and 77 by a closed percutaneous technique. The pooled rate of post-traumatic arthrosis was 57.5% (26.6-85.5) in the ORIF group versus 26.1% (3.9-59.0) in the CRIF group. Mean surgical operation time was 71.9 min for ORIF and 30.2 min for percutaneous patients. Fixation failure was significantly more often seen in the ORIF patients, 8.2% (0.7-22.8) vs. 2.9% (0.8-9.1), Risk Ratio 1.132 (0.01-176.745); p = 0.048. Infection was only seen in 5 CRIF patients. Persistent pain was seen in 32.9% (0.6-83.1) in ORIF patients versus 22.3% (8.1-41.1) in the CRIF patients. The pooled means Grip strength was 48.3 kg (95% CI; 39.7-56.9) versus 43.4 kg (95% CI; 22.9-63.8) for ORIF and CRPF, respectively. Functional impairment was similar between the two groups, 1.4% (0.1-4.4) vs 1.8% (0.1-5.7) respectively.
CONCLUSION: The analysed data do not confirm ORIF to prevent post-traumatic arthrosis, secondly more fixation failure and pain was seen in the ORIF group. The pooled data show percutaneous fixation to be preferable over ORIF in the surgical treatment of Bennett fractures.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app