Classification and treatment in the injury of hamatometacarpal joint / 中华骨科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective To study the classification, management and outcome of the injury of hamatometacarpal joint. Methods Retrospective analysis was carried out in 17 patients with injury of hamatometacarpal joint. There were 16 males and 1 female aged 19-51 years old. 3 in left hand and 14 in right hand were injuried. The dominant hands of all were right hand. The injury of hamatometacarpal joint might be classified into 4 major groups based on the condition of the hamate, and subdivided into 2 subtypes based on the isolated dislocation(subluxation) or fracture-dislocation of metacarpal base. Carpometacarpal joint ligment injury without fracture of hamatum and the fourth or fifth metacarpal base dislocation without fracture was defined as typeⅠa. When there was a fracture of the fourth or fifth metacarpal base following typeⅠa was defined as typeⅠb. Avulsion fracture of the back of hamatum and the fourth and/or the fifth metacarpal base dislocation without fracture was defined as type Ⅱa. With the fracture of the fourth or fifth metacarpal base following the typeⅡa was defined as type Ⅱb. Splintered fracture of the back of hamatum with the fourth and/or fifth metacarpal base dislocation without fracture was defined as typeⅢa. With the fracture of metacarpal base following typeⅢa was defined as typeⅢb. The split fracture of coronal side of hamatum with the fourth and/or fifth metacarpal base dislocation and without fracture was defined as type Ⅳa. With fracture of the fourth and/or fifth metacarpal base following type Ⅳa was defined as type Ⅳb. There were 7 typeⅠb, 2 typeⅡa, 1 typeⅡb, 2 typeⅢb, 1 typeⅣa, 4 type Ⅳb in our group. We chose conservative or operative treatment according to the type of injury. Results The follow-up was 4-96 months. The patients had fracture union rate of 100%, and no traumatic osteoarthritis was occurred. There was a statistical significance when the motion of two-side joints was compared post surgery. There was no significant difference between bilateral hand in grip strength. Subjective evaluations of the patients were good or excellent. No complications was occurred. There is no case involved in any complications such as traumatic arthrositis, inflammation, neural injuries and adhesion of tendon. Conclusion The stable injury of hamatometacarpal joint should be ideally treated by closed reduction and immobilization in a well-moulded cast or splint. Satisfactory outcome can be got if keeping under strict surveillance. The unstable or intra-articular fracture should be treated by surgery. The outcome is also satisfactory and the rate of the complication of traumatic arthritis is low in short period follow-up. The outcome of fresh injury is much better than old one.