Abstract
Background:
Intramedullary implants are an increasingly common method for fixation of metacarpal fractures. Numerous techniques for instrumentation have been described with varied consideration for the risk of extensor tendon injury. The current cadaveric study evaluates the prevalence and degree of extensor tendon injury and compares percutaneous approaches with different drilling techniques.
Methods:
Ninety-six metacarpals (thumbs excluded) from 24 fresh-frozen cadaveric upper extremities were used to compare 2 percutaneous approaches and 2 drilling techniques. This resulted in 4 subgroups available for comparison: oscillate to bone (OB), forward to bone (FB), oscillating through the skin (OS), and forward through the skin (FS). After instrumentation, the extensor tendons were dissected and disruption was characterized. The main outcome measures were tendon “hit rate” and relative extensor tendon defect width.
Results:
Tendon hit rate was significantly higher in the long finger (LF), that is, 79.2%, compared with other metacarpals: index finger, 20.8%; ring finger, 12.5%; and small finger 25%. The mean relative tendon disruption was significantly less in the OB group (16.05%) compared with the other groups: FB (31.84%), FS (31.50%), and OS (29.85%).
Conclusion:
Retrograde intramedullary screw fixation of metacarpal fractures can be performed using percutaneous approaches without a significant disruption of the extensor mechanism. Instrumentation through a longitudinal stab incision down to the metacarpal head and the use of drill oscillation minimize injury to the extensor tendons. The LF extensor tendon is most at risk with retrograde intramedullary implant placement.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.