Tae-Hyung Kim; Bo Hyeon Kim; In-Ho Jung; Dong-Hyun Kim

doi:10.12671/jkfs.2011.24.1.67

Articles

Page Path: HOME > J Musculoskelet Trauma > Volume 24(1); 2011 > Article

Original Article
Antegrade Intramedullary Prebent K-wire Fixation for the 5th Metacarpal Neck Fracture: Tae-Hyung Kim, M.D., Bo Hyeon Kim, M.D., In-Ho Jung, M.D., Dong-Hyun Kim, M.D.; Journal of the Korean Fracture Society 2011;24(1):67-72.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12671/jkfs.2011.24.1.67
Published online: January 21, 2011

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Cheongju St. Mary's Hospital, Cheongju, Korea.

^*Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Address reprint requests to: Bo Hyeon Kim, M.D. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Cheongju St. Mary's Hospital, 589-5, Jujung-dong, Sangdang-gu, Cheongju 360-568, Korea. Tel: 82-43-219-8140·Fax: 82-43-219-8157, ostwins@naver.com

• Received: August 2, 2010 • Revised: September 11, 2010 • Accepted: November 16, 2010

93 Views
0 Download
1 Crossref

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

Abstract

Purpose
To evaluate radiological and clinical results of the antegrade intramedullary prebent K-wire fixation for the 5th metacarpal neck fracture.
Materials and Methods
Between January, 2006 and December, 2009, 31 patients with displaced neck fracture of the fifth metacarpal who received antegrade intramedullary prebent K-wire fixation were included in this study. Radiological and clinical outcome evaluations were performed.
Results
All the fractures were completely united. In the oblique radiographs, the average of preoperative angulation was corrected from 38.9° to 4.4°. The average difference between postoperative and final follow-up was 1.2°. Clinical outcomes were satisfactory except for one patient who had sustained ulnar nerve dorsal branch injury during surgery.
Conclusion
Antegrade intramedullary prebent K-wire fixation may be preferentially considered as one of the best ways to fix the displaced neck fractures of the fifth metacarpal.
Key words: Metacarpal, Neck fracture, Antegrade intramedullary K-wire fixation

REFERENCES

1. Ali A, Hamman J, Mass DP. The biomechanical effects of angulated boxer's fractures. J Hand Surg Am, 1999;24:835-844.Article
2. Braakman M, Oderwald EE, Haentjens MH. Functional taping of fractures of the 5th metacarpal results in a quicker recovery. Injury, 1998;29:5-9.Article
3. Choi SJ, Chang SK. Teatment method of the metacarpal bone fractures with retrograde percutaneous intramedullary K-wire fixation to decrease the injury of extensor tendon. J Korean Soc Surg Hand, 2004;9:117-122.
4. Ford DJ, Ali MS, Steel WM. Fractures of the fifth metacarpal neck: is reduction or immobilisation necessary? J Hand Surg Br, 1989;14:165-167.Article PDF
5. Foucher G. "Bouquet" osteosynthesis in metacarpal neck fractures: a series of 66 patients. J Hand Surg Am, 1995;20:S86-S90.
6. Foucher G, Chemorin C, Sibilly A. A new technic of osteosynthesis in fractures of the distal 3d of the 5th metacarpus. Nouv Presse Med, 1976;5:1139-1140.
7. Hunter JM, Cowen NJ. Fifth metacarpal fractures in a compensation clinic population. A report on one hundred and thirty-three cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1970;52:1159-1165.
8. Jahss SA. Fracture of the metacarpals: a new method of reduction and immobilization. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1938;20:178-186.
9. Kim BS, Cho SD, Cho YS, et al. Operative treatment of metacarpal shaft fracture. J Korean Soc Fract, 1999;12:720-726.
10. Kim MH, Yoo MJ, Kim JP, Lee JH, Lee JW. Bouquet pin intramedullary nail technique of the 5th metacarpal neck fractures. J Korean Fract Soc, 2007;20:64-69.
11. Lamraski G, Monsaert A, De Maeseneer M, Haentjens P. Reliability and validity of plain radiographs to assess angulation of small finger metacarpal neck fractures: human cadaveric study. J Orthop Res, 2006;24:37-45.
12. Leung YL, Beredjiklian PK, Monaghan BA, Bozentka DJ. Radiographic assessment of small finger metacarpal neck fractures. J Hand Surg Am, 2002;27:443-448.
13. Manueddu CA, Della Santa D. Fasciculated intramedullary pinning of metacarpal fractures. J Hand Surg Br, 1996;21:230-236.
14. McKerrell J, Bowen V, Johnston G, Zondervan J. Boxer's fractures--conservative or operative management. J Trauma, 1987;27:486-490.
15. Paul AS, Kurdy N, Kay PR. Fixation of closed metacarpal shaft fractures. Transverse K-wires in 22 cases. Acta Orthop Scand, 1994;65:427-429.
16. Steel WM. Barton NJ. Articular fractures. In: Fractures of the hand and wrist, 1988;New York, Churchill Livingstone. 55-73.
17. Theeuwen GA, Lemmens JA, van Niekerk JL. Conservative treatment of boxer's fracture: a retrospective analysis. Injury, 1991;22:394-396.
18. Wong TC, Ip FK, Yeung SH. Comparison between percutaneous transverse fixation and intramedullary K-wires in treating closed fractures of the metacarpal neck of the little finger. J Hand Surg Br, 2006;31:61-65.

Fig. 1

The prebent wire is firmly fixed to the drill chuck.

Fig. 2

The wire is inserted through the ulnar cortex of the little finger metacarpal base, after 5 mm incision.

Fig. 3

Drive the wire into the fracture site like a guide pin of the interlocking nail system.

Fig. 4

Prebent tip of the wire is secured at the subchondral bone of the metacarpal head after closed reduction under the C-arm.

Fig. 5

A 46-year old man sustains a 5^th metacarpal neck fracture with 35° angulation deformity in oblique radiograph.

Fig. 6

Postoperative radiographs show 0° residual angulation after pin fixation.

Fig. 7

Four-month postoperative radiographs show good union without any reduction loss.

Fig. 8

Phoptograhs show full range of motion.

Fig. 9

The height of the K-wire is proportionate to the bending angle. H: Thickness of K-wire+h, b: Length of prebent wire, a: Angle, h: b sin a.

Table 1

Grading for clinical results

Excellent: 500~476, Good: 475~451, Fair: 450~426, Poor: <425. From Kim et al10) and Steel16)

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Clinical Outcomes of Customized Staple Fixation Using K-wire in Metacarpal Base or Neck Fractures
Hong-ki Jin, Hyoung Min Kim, Yong Seung Oh, Jihoon Kim
Journal of the Korean Fracture Society.2021; 34(1): 23. CrossRef

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Antegrade Intramedullary Prebent K-wire Fixation for the 5th Metacarpal Neck Fracture

J Korean Fract Soc. 2011;24(1):67-72. Published online January 31, 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12671/jkfs.2011.24.1.67

XML Download

Figure

We recommend

Antegrade Intramedullary Prebent K-wire Fixation for the 5th Metacarpal Neck Fracture

Fig. 1 The prebent wire is firmly fixed to the drill chuck.

Fig. 2 The wire is inserted through the ulnar cortex of the little finger metacarpal base, after 5 mm incision.

Fig. 3 Drive the wire into the fracture site like a guide pin of the interlocking nail system.

Fig. 4 Prebent tip of the wire is secured at the subchondral bone of the metacarpal head after closed reduction under the C-arm.

Fig. 5 A 46-year old man sustains a 5th metacarpal neck fracture with 35° angulation deformity in oblique radiograph.

Fig. 6 Postoperative radiographs show 0° residual angulation after pin fixation.

Fig. 7 Four-month postoperative radiographs show good union without any reduction loss.

Fig. 8 Phoptograhs show full range of motion.

Fig. 9 The height of the K-wire is proportionate to the bending angle. H: Thickness of K-wire+h, b: Length of prebent wire, a: Angle, h: b sin a.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Antegrade Intramedullary Prebent K-wire Fixation for the 5th Metacarpal Neck Fracture

Table 1

Grading for clinical results

Excellent: 500~476, Good: 475~451, Fair: 450~426, Poor: <425. From Kim et al10) and Steel16)

Table 1 Grading for clinical results

Excellent: 500~476, Good: 475~451, Fair: 450~426, Poor: <425. From Kim et al10) and Steel16)