ABSTRACT
Purpose: Our purpose was to assess how nonunion of the metacarpals has been defined in prior investigations with respect to both clinical and radiographic criteria. We hypothesized that the definitions of nonunion would be highly variable. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE and Embase databases for clinical articles related to the treatment of metacarpal fractures (surgical and nonsurgical) from 2010 to 2021. Included articles were searched to assess how nonunion was defined based on clinical and radiographic criteria. We assessed the treatment type, method of union assessment, time to union, and incidence of union as well as article factors such as the following: date of publication, level of evidence, and publishing journal. Results: A total of 641 articles were identified, of which 102 were included for a definition of nonunion and 97 were included for the assessment of clinical management and outcomes. Of the included articles, 62% contained level IV evidence. A definition of nonunion was provided in 47% of the articles. Radiographic criteria alone, clinical criteria alone, or a combination of the 2 was used in 22%, 6%, and 19% of the cases, respectively, to define nonunion. The most common definition of nonunion was presence of fracture-site tenderness (with no time defined) in 20 articles (20%), followed by lack of radiographic healing at 6 months (15%). In the 97 included articles, the total number of fracture cases was 4,435 and nonunion was reported in 0.45%. Cases with nonunion were reported in a total of six articles that used a variety of treatment modalities. Conclusions: The definition of metacarpal nonunion remains highly variable and lacks standardization with respect to clinical and radiographic criteria. Clinical relevance: Standardizing the definition of nonunion for metacarpal fractures would allow for more accurate assessments of the incidence of this complication and may aid in improving diagnostic and management strategies.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: At present, the geographic distribution of orthopedic foot and ankle (OFA) surgeons in the United States is poorly defined. The purpose of this investigation is to determine the geographic distribution of OFA surgeons in the United States. We hypothesize that there will be differences in OFA surgeon density throughout the United States and that economic factors may play a role in access to subspecialty OFA care. METHODS: A current membership list was obtained from the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS). Active members were categorized relative to states and US congressional districts, using publicly available census data. The relationship between income and surgeon density was determined using a Pearson correlation. RESULTS: We identified a list of 1103 active AOFAS members. There was an average of 0.38 and 0.40 OFA surgeons per 100 000 people in each state and congressional district, respectively. We found a weak negative relationship demonstrating that regions with higher levels of poverty had fewer OFA surgeons, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.14 (95% CI: -0.24, -0.04), P = .008. CONCLUSION: There is wide geographic variation of OFA surgeon density throughout the United States. Regions with higher levels of poverty were weakly associated with decreased population density of OFA surgeons compared to regions with lower poverty levels. Understanding these trends may aid in developing both recruitment and referral strategies for complex foot and ankle care in underserved regions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.
