| Literature DB >> 32904013 |
Sanglim Lee1, Seung Jin Jang2, Suk Ha Jeon2.
Abstract
BACKGROUD: Volar plate avulsion fractures of the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint are a common hand injury and have been treated conservatively with favorable results. We assumed that conservative treatment of volar plate avulsion fractures of the PIP joint would be unsuccessful if the fracture fragment, even if small, was much displaced or rotated and that delayed excision of the avulsion fractures would result in good outcomes. We report clinical and radiological outcomes of conservative treatment of volar plate avulsion fractures of the PIP joint and risk factors for failure of conservative treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Avulsion fracture; Conservative treatment; Excision; Finger; Volar plate
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32904013 PMCID: PMC7449859 DOI: 10.4055/cios19149
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Orthop Surg ISSN: 2005-291X
Fig. 1The shape of the fracture fragment on lateral X-rays described as dot (A), sliver (B), triangle (C), or rhomboid (D).
Fig. 2(A) On the lateral radiograph, the longest proximal-distal length was defined as the height and the longest anteroposterior line perpendicular to it, as the width. The fragment size was evaluated as the area by multiplying the width by the height. (B) The distance between the bisector at the volar fracture surface of the middle phalangeal base and the bisector at the fracture fragment was measured to assess the extent of displacement. (C) The angle created between the volar fracture surface of the middle phalangeal base and the surface of the fracture fragment was measured to assess the extent of rotation.
Fig. 3Distribution of the level of pain in the success and failure groups after conservative treatment.
Range of Motion of Each Group after Conservative Treatment and after Operation
| Variable | Average | Standard deviation | 95% Confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexion contracture (°) | ||||
| Success group | 4.64 | 7.91 | 2.76–6.52 | < 0.001* |
| Failure group: preoperative | 14.17 | 11.15 | 8.62–19.71 | 0.002* |
| Failure group: postoperative | 8.89 | 10.23 | 3.80–13.97 | |
| Further flexion (°) | ||||
| Success group | 94.71 | 9.55 | 92.44–96.99 | 0.001* |
| Failure group: preoperative | 77.50 | 18.81 | 68.15–86.85 | 0.017* |
| Failure group: postoperative | 91.11 | 9.00 | 86.63–95.59 | |
| Range of motion (°) | ||||
| Success group | 90.07 | 14.9 | 86.53–93.62 | < 0.001* |
| Failure group: preoperative | 63.33 | 24.01 | 51.39–75.27 | 0.003* |
| Failure group: postoperative | 82.22 | 15.93 | 74.30–90.14 |
*p < 0.05.
Fig. 4Distribution of the shape of the fragments in the success and failure groups.
Comparison of Averages of the Size, Displacement, and Rotation of the Fragments Between Groups
| Variable | Average | Standard deviation | 95% Confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexion contracture (°) | ||||
| Success group | 4.64 | 7.91 | 2.76–6.52 | < 0.001* |
| Failure group: preoperative | 14.17 | 11.15 | 8.62–19.71 | 0.002* |
| Failure group: postoperative | 8.89 | 10.23 | 3.80–13.97 | |
| Further flexion (°) | ||||
| Success group | 94.71 | 9.55 | 92.44–96.99 | 0.001* |
| Failure group: preoperative | 77.50 | 18.81 | 68.15–86.85 | 0.017* |
| Failure group: postoperative | 91.11 | 9.00 | 86.63–95.59 | |
| Range of motion (°) | ||||
| Success group | 90.07 | 14.9 | 86.53–93.62 | < 0.001* |
| Failure group: preoperative | 63.33 | 24.01 | 51.39–75.27 | 0.003* |
| Failure group: postoperative | 82.22 | 15.93 | 74.30–90.14 |
*p < 0.05.
Results of Multivariate Logistic Regression Test
| Variable | B | Standard error | Exp (B) | Confidence interval for exp (B) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fragment displacement | 0.354 | 0.542 | 0.513 | 1.425 | 0.492–4.127 |
| Fragment rotation | 0.025 | 0.009 | 0.010* | 1.025 | 1.006–1.044 |
| Flexion contracture | 0.020 | 0.040 | 0.618 | 1.020 | 0.943–1.103 |
| Further flexion | −0.060 | 0.032 | 0.062 | 0.942 | 0.855–1.003 |
| Constant | 2.244 | 3.010 | 0.456 | 9.436 | - |
*p < 0.05.