Closed Reduction Percutaneous Pinning Versus Open Reduction With Plate and Screw Fixation in Management of Unstable Proximal Phalangeal Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

• Published in: Hand (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2025-01, Vol.20 (1), p.136-142
• Main Authors: Gaio, Natalie M., Kruse, Lisa M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bone Nails; Bone Plates; Bone Screws; Closed Fracture Reduction - methods; Disability Evaluation; Finger Phalanges - injuries; Finger Phalanges - surgery; Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation; Fracture Fixation, Internal - methods; Fractures, Bone - surgery; Humans; Open Fracture Reduction - methods; Original Research; Range of Motion, Articular
• ISSN: 1558-9447; 1558-9455; 1558-9455
• DOI: 10.1177/15589447231189762

Background: Proximal phalanx fractures are common, with surgical fixation indicated for unstable fractures. Traditionally, closed reduction percutaneous pinning (CRPP) resulted in decreased stiffness and tendon irritation compared to open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). We hypothesized that more recent studies would have more similar outcomes to CRPP. The purpose of this study was to compare CRPP and ORIF in terms of range of motion, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores, and complications. Methods: Four electronic databases were queried from 2010 to present. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, two independent reviewers performed a two-step review process to identify relevant articles. Patient demographics, total active motion (TAM), DASH, and complications were extracted. The methodological quality of each study included was assessed independently. Meta-analysis was performed for comparative trials. Results: Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria including four comparative studies: Thirteen studies included TAM. The weighted average TAM was 228 ± 34° for CRPP and 223 ± 32° for ORIF (P = .07 with 95% confidence interval (CI), −0.5 to 10.5). Seven studies evaluated DASH scores; weighted average was 8.2 ± 8.9 for CRPP and 11.7 ± 6.5 for ORIF (P < .01 with 95% CI, 1.8-5.2). Two studies directly compared CRPP to ORIF, favoring ORIF for both TAM with d = 1.07 and DASH with d = 0.23. Rates of tenolysis or hardware removal were higher for ORIF (P < .01). Conclusions: New literature suggests more equipoise with regard to treatment of proximal phalanx fracture with CRPP versus ORIF. Type of study/level of evidence: Meta-analysis, Level II.