| Literature DB >> 26962488 |
Marcio Aurélio Aita1, Paulo Augusto Castro Mos1, Gisele de Paula Cardoso Marques Leite1, Rafael Saleme Alves1, Marcos Vinicius Credídio1, Eduardo Fernandes da Costa1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical-functional parameters and quality of life of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgical treatment for extra-articular fractures of the proximal phalanx, using an intramedullary screw (Acutrak(®)).Entities:
Keywords: Fracture fixation; Fractures of the proximal phalanx; Internal facture fixation
Year: 2015 PMID: 26962488 PMCID: PMC4767824 DOI: 10.1016/j.rboe.2015.12.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Bras Ortop ISSN: 2255-4971
Fig. 1View of the entry point of the screw at the dorsal base of the proximal phalanx, showing the preservation of the joint cartilage at the base of the proximal phalanx, in the metacarpophalangeal joint. Dissection of a cadaver.
Fig. 2Postoperative radiograph in lateral view of patient 27.
Fig. 3Postoperative radiograph in anteroposterior view of patient 27.
Epidemiological distribution and postoperative follow-up of the patients.
| Number | Age (years) | Finger affected | Follow-up (months) | Return to work | Complications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 36 | 2nd right | 12 | Before 6 months | No |
| 2 | 36 | 3rd right | 12 | Same occupation | No |
| 3 | 48 | 4th right | 12 | Same occupation | No |
| 4 | 26 | 2nd right | 12 | Other occupation | Yes |
| 5 | 23 | 4th left | 12 | Other occupation | No |
| 6 | 19 | 4th left | 12 | Same occupation | No |
| 7 | 29 | 5th right | 12 | Same occupation | No |
| 8 | 36 | 1st left | 12 | Other occupation | No |
| 9 | 21 | 3rd right | 12 | Same occupation | No |
| 10 | 24 | 2nd right | 12 | Other occupation | Yes |
| 11 | 24 | 3rd right | 12 | Other occupation | No |
| 12 | 36 | 4th left | 12 | Same occupation | No |
| 13 | 48 | 2nd left | 12 | Other occupation | No |
| 14 | 41 | 3rd right | 12 | Same occupation | No |
| 15 | 21 | 5th right | 12 | Same occupation | Yes |
| 16 | 30 | 2nd right | 21 | Same occupation | No |
| 17 | 32 | 3rd right | 20 | Other occupation | No |
| 18 | 25 | 3rd right | 20 | Same occupation | No |
| 19 | 28 | 5th right | 20 | Same occupation | No |
| 20 | 19 | 3rd right | 18 | Same occupation | No |
| 21 | 23 | 1st right | 18 | Other occupation | No |
| 22 | 25 | 2nd left | 17 | Same occupation | No |
| 23 | 25 | 3rd left | 17 | Same occupation | No |
| 24 | 29 | 5th left | 17 | Same occupation | No |
| 25 | 32 | 5th left | 17 | Other occupation | No |
| 26 | 30 | 5th left | 17 | Same occupation | No |
| 27 | 25 | 2nd right | 15 | Same occupation | No |
| 28 | 47 | 4th right | 16 | Same occupation | No |
| 29 | 19 | 5th right | 12 | Same occupation | No |
| 30 | 28 | 5th right | 12 | Same occupation | No |
| 31 | 28 | 4th right | 12 | Same occupation | No |
| 32 | 23 | 5th right | 12 | Other occupation | Yes |
| 33 | 28 | 3rd right | 12 | Other occupation | No |
| 34 | 28 | 4th right | 12 | Other occupation | No |
| 35 | 28 | 5th right | 12 | Other occupation | No |
| 36 | 25 | 3rd right | 33 | Same occupation | No |
| 37 | 29 | 5th right | 32 | Same occupation | No |
| 38 | 46 | 1st right | 32 | Same occupation | No |
| 39 | 29 | 4th left | 32 | Same occupation | No |
| 40 | 51 | 5th right | 31 | Same occupation | No |
| 41 | 38 | 1st left | 31 | Same occupation | No |
| 42 | 29 | 2nd right | 23 | Same occupation | No |
| 43 | 29 | 3rd right | 23 | Same occupation | No |
| 44 | 36 | 5th right | 20 | Same occupation | No |
| 45 | 42 | 5th right | 20 | Same occupation | No |
| 46 | 21 | 3rd left | 19 | Same occupation | No |
| 47 | 36 | 5th left | 19 | Same occupation | No |
| 48 | 19 | 2nd right | 19 | Same occupation | No |
Fig. 4Comparison of the range of motion (ROM) variable between the normal and affected fingers (%).
Comparison of the variables of interest at the preoperative and postoperative observation times.
| Pair of variables | Mean | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum | 25th percentile | 50th percentile (median) | 75th percentile | Significance ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal ROM | 48 | 100.0 | 0.00 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.002 |
| ROM after 1 year | 48 | 97.02 | 7.02 | 65.0 | 100.0 | 96.25 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
| Normal DASH | 48 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.002 |
| DASH after 1 year | 48 | 3.56 | 7.00 | 1.00 | 45.0 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 4.00 | |
| Normal VAS | 48 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.002 |
| VAS after 1 year | 48 | 1.52 | 1.11 | 1.00 | 6.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.75 |
Fig. 5Comparison of the DASH variable between the normal and affected sides.
Fig. 6Comparison of the VAS variable between the normal and affected sides.