Forearm Fracture Fixation with Locking Plates: Does Size Matter?

Purpose: Forearm shaft fractures of the radius and/or ulna are typically repaired with plates and screws, with 3.5 mm nonlocking screws being generally recommended. However, smaller plates and screws, either nonlocking or locking, can also be applied. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively review whether fracture healing rates and related complications are affected by plate size and type. Methods: Patient demographic and descriptive data were retrospectively collected for all patients with a forearm shaft fracture treated with repair of the radial shaft and/or ulna shaft between 2017 and 2021 at a multiprovider and multilocation single institution. Inclusion criteria involved use of a locking plate with a minimum radiographic follow-up of 60 days and/or until fracture union was confirmed. Results: A total of 110 patients met inclusion criteria. There were 45 (40.9%) females and 65 (59.1%) males included with the mean age at time of injury being 47 years (± 22). There were 34 (30.1%) isolated radius fractures, 50 (45.5%) isolated ulna fractures, and 26 (23.6%) both bone forearm fractures. Screw sizes consisted of 3.5 mm (small fragment) screws in 57 (52%) cases, whereas 2.7 mm/2.5 mm/2.4 mm (mini fragment) screws were used in 53 (48%) cases. Fracture union was confirmed in 108 (98%) cases. Among the two nonunion cases, one case (50%) involved a small fragment, and one case (50%) involved a mini fragment plate. Conclusions: This study confirms that fracture union is high following any size plate fixation of radius and/or ulna fractures. Moreover, smaller screw sizes did not affect fracture union rates. Choice of plate type and screw diameter should be based on patient characteristics and surgeon preference and need not be limited to only 3.5 mm plate and screws. Type of Study/Level of Evidence: Prognosis IIb.

Multimodal Pain Management After Outpatient Orthopedic Hand Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Trial.

Purpose: Opioid stewardship ensures effective pain management while avoiding overprescribing of opioids after surgery. This prospective randomized study investigates the efficacy of a multimodal postoperative pain regimen compared to a traditional opioid-only pain regimen following elective outpatient orthopedic hand surgery. We hypothesized that patients receiving multimodal pain management would consume fewer opioids and report greater satisfaction than patients receiving only opioids. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing outpatient hand and upper extremity surgery performed by two board-certified fellowship-trained orthopedic hand surgeons at one institution were recruited and randomized into either a study or control group. The study group received a standing multimodal postoperative regimen consisting of scheduled oral acetaminophen and naproxen as well as oxycodone to be taken as needed. The control group received only oxycodone to be taken as needed. Postoperatively, daily pain levels, medication usage, refills, satisfaction, and adverse events were recorded. Descriptive statistics were performed. Results: Of the 112 patients enrolled, 54 were randomized to the control group, and 58 were randomized to the study group. Study and control group patients did not differ significantly based on daily average pain scores or daily worst pain scores. However, study group patients reported fewer average daily oxycodone intake and total oxycodone pill count (7.0 vs 2.4 total pills, P <.005). In addition, the study group patients were more likely to report satisfaction with their postoperative pain control than control regimen patient's and were more likely to use the same pain regimen again if required. Conclusion: A multimodal postoperative pain regimen reduces opioid usage and has higher patient satisfaction rates in comparison to traditional opioid-only regimens. Use of multimodal pain regimens that use nonopioids, such as acetaminophen and naproxen, over an opioid should be considered for postoperative pain after orthopedic hand surgery. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic II.

Metacarpal Fracture Repair: Early Reoperation Rates and Characteristics.

Purpose: Metacarpal fractures are common injuries of the hand that often require operative repair. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the rate of reoperation and circumstances following metacarpal repair. Methods: A retrospective review of all metacarpal fracture cases performed at a single academic institution between 2017 and 2021 was performed. All patients with isolated, acute metacarpal fractures were included for review. Data on patient demographics, fracture morphology, surgical technique, rate of early reoperation, and reason for reoperation were collected. Results: A total of 499 patients were identified to have undergone operative treatment for an isolated metacarpal fracture with an average follow-up of 4.2 months. The rate of unplanned early reoperation was 8.0% (n = 40), with seven patients requiring revision fracture surgery and 33 patients undergoing removal of symptomatic hardware. Mean and median time to reoperation was 2.1 and 1.5 months, respectively. The rate of reoperation for fractures of the metacarpal shaft was significantly lower than that of other fracture locations. Among the 40 revision cases, one case was following percutaneous fixation while 39 cases were following open reduction and internal fixation. Other demographic factures and fracture characteristics failed to show significant correlations to the rate of reoperation. Conclusions: An unplanned early reoperation rate of 8.0% after operative fixation of acute metacarpal fractures was observed with the majority involving cases of removal of symptomatic hardware and an average time to reoperation of approximately 2.1 months. This information can be used to counsel patients and set expectations about the potential for metacarpal fracture surgeries. Type of Study/Level of Evidence: Prognosis 2b.

Nonunion After Using Procedure-Specific Instrumentations for Ulnar Shortening Osteotomy.

Objectives: The primary purpose of this study was to compare the rates of nonunion among different osteotomy designs (company brand) and the rates of nonunion between oblique and transverse osteotomies. We secondarily aimed to assess the differences in reoperation and hardware removal rates after ulnar shortening osteotomy (USO). Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing ulnar shortening osteotomy between 2015 and 2022 in our institute amongst 17 providers resulted in 92 consecutive patients. We included skeletally mature patients who underwent USO for the ulnar impingement abutment diagnosis. Demographic information was collected, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, BMI, and medical comorbidities. Six brand-specific devices were used and compared to the conventional plate fixation. Nonunion was determined based on the final available radiograph with a minimum follow-up of four months. Results: Of the 92 patients, 83 (90%) had a bone union. There is a remarkable difference in union among implant brands, although statistical analysis was not performed due to the small number of patients in each group. Transverse osteotomy was significantly related to a higher nonunion rate. Out of nine patients with resultant nonunion (10%), three healed after revision surgery (3.2%), two were lost to follow-up (2.2%), and four remained asymptomatic despite radiographic nonunion (4.6%). Plate removal was performed in four patients (4.3%), all of whom were in the union group. Conclusion: Patients should be informed about the nonunion rate with possible subsequent secondary surgery. Using procedure-specific devices may have mitigated the risk of nonunion.

Trigger Finger Release: Are Sutures Requiring Removal Necessary?

Purpose: There is no consensus regarding optimal closure for trigger finger release (TFR) surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the number of postoperative visits and complications following TFR closure with nonabsorbable sutures versus those following TFR closure with absorbable sutures and skin glue. The hypothesis was that wound closure with absorbable sutures and glue will result in fewer postoperative visits, while having similar complication rates as that with nonabsorbable sutures. Methods: A retrospective review identified all patients undergoing open TFR over a 3-year period performed by two hand surgery fellowship-trained hand surgeons who adhered to an identical surgical protocol except for incisional closure. Patients were divided into two groups: a control group with nonabsorbable 4-0 monofilament sutures requiring removal ("suture" group) and a study group with buried absorbable 4-0 monofilament sutures not requiring removal as well as skin glue ("glue" group). The data collected included age, sex, number of postoperative visits, wound complications, infections, antibiotic use, prescribed hand therapy, hospital admission, and reoperation. Results: A total of 305 open TFR surgeries in 278 patients were included in the study, with 155 digits in the "suture" group and 150 in the "glue" group. Both groups were similar in age and sex. The "suture" group had significantly more total postoperative visits (185 vs 42, respectively, P < .001) and postoperative visits within the first 2 weeks (155 vs 10, respectively, P < .001) than the "glue" group. Additional postoperative visits beyond 2 weeks of surgery were similar between the two groups. Three (1.9%) patients in the "suture" group and two (1.3%) patients in the "glue" group developed a superficial surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery. Neither had deep infections requiring hospitalization or reoperation. Both groups required similar rates of postoperative hand therapy. Conclusions: Absorbable sutures afford fewer postoperative visits while having a similar complication rate as nonabsorbable sutures requiring removal. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic IV.

Pickleball- and Paddleball-Related Injuries to the Upper Extremity.

Introduction While pickleball and paddleball are rapidly growing as popular sports in the United States, research on the incidence of hand and upper extremity injuries and treatments in outpatient clinics are lacking. This study evaluates the incidence rates and treatment options, both surgically and nonsurgically, for patients presenting with pickleball/paddleball-related injuries. Methods A retrospective database search of our multispecialty, multilocation electronic medical record (EMR) system from 2015 to 2022 identified 204 patients with outpatient pickleball- and paddleball-related injuries. The data from these patients' charts were reviewed for injury incidences, treatment trends, and demographics. Results  The majority of patients suffered wrist fractures due to a fall/dive and were treated nonsurgically. The most common surgical treatment, when required, was open reduction and internal fixation of the distal radius. We found that pickleball and paddleball players who sustained wrist fractures required surgery at a higher rate than the general population if above the age of 65. Conclusion As pickleball and paddleball continue to gain popularity, hand surgeons should be aware of the types of injuries that can occur and, when possible, counsel patients accordingly to try to prevent them. Additionally, hand surgeons should recognize the common treatments and outcomes that arise from pickleball/paddleball-related injuries.

The effect of outpatient web-based online scheduling versus traditional staff scheduling systems on progression to surgery and no-show rates.

Background: This study aimed to compare the rate of scheduled surgery and no-show rates between online-scheduled appointments and traditionally scheduled appointments. Materials and Methods: All scheduled outpatient visits at a single large multi-subspecialty orthopedic practice in three U.S. states (PA, NJ, and NY) were collected from February 1, 2022, to February 28, 2022. Visits were categorized as "online-scheduled" or "traditionally scheduled" and then further grouped as "no-show," "canceled," or "visited." Finally, visits were categorized as either "new patient" or "follow-up." Results: There was no significant difference between scheduling systems for patient progression to any procedure within 3 months of the initial visit (P = 0.97) and patient progression for surgery only within 3 months of the initial visit (P = 0.88). However, we found a significant difference with a higher rate of progression to surgery in traditionally scheduled than online-scheduled visits when accounting for only new patient visits that progressed to surgery within 3 months of the initial encounter (P = 0.036). No-show rates between scheduling systems were not significant (P = 0.79), but no-show rates were significant when comparing the practice's subspecialties (P < 0.001). Finally, no-show rates for online-scheduled compared to traditionally scheduled patients for both new and follow-up appointments were not significantly different (P = 0.28 and P = 0.94, respectively). Conclusion: Orthopedic practices should utilize online-scheduling systems as there was a higher progression to surgery of traditionally scheduled appointments compared to online. Depending on the subspecialty, no-show rates differed. Furthermore, online-scheduling allows for more patient autonomy and less burden on office staff.