The Effect of Percutaneous Retrograde Metacarpal Intramedullary Screw Insertion on the Extensor Tendon.

Tara Gaston, Jonas L Matzon, Samir Sodha, Christopher Jones, Christopher Hoffman, Michael Rivlin
{"title":"The Effect of Percutaneous Retrograde Metacarpal Intramedullary Screw Insertion on the Extensor Tendon.","authors":"Tara Gaston,&nbsp;Jonas L Matzon,&nbsp;Samir Sodha,&nbsp;Christopher Jones,&nbsp;Christopher Hoffman,&nbsp;Michael Rivlin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Both limited-open and percutaneous techniques have been described for retrograde insertion of intramedullary metacarpal screws. The percutaneous approach does not allow direct visualization of the starting point at the metacarpal head. However, it limits soft tissue dissection and expedites the procedure. The purpose of our study was to determine whether percutaneous, retrograde intramedullary screw fixation causes substantial iatrogenic damage to the extensor tendon. We also investigated whether larger sized screws would cause greater tendon injury compared to smaller screws.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eight fresh frozen cadaver hands were used for percutaneous, retrograde intramedullary screw insertion of the index, long, ring, and small finger metacarpals of each specimen. Three different types of headless compression screws were used: a small fully threaded screw, a large fully threaded screw, and a Herbert-style partially threaded screw. After insertion, dissection was carried down to the screw entry site. Extensor tendon damage was evaluated, including tendon defect size and any irregularities noted in the tendon.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no statistical difference with respect to how frequently a screw perforated the extensor tendons between all four finger metacarpals. Overall, the defect width caused by the screw was minimal, ranging from 0.66 mm to 1.89 mm for all finger and screw types. The large style screw did cause the greatest mean defect width, however, this was not statistically significant. When normalized to total tendon width, the defect was less than 28% of the total tendon width, with an average of 20% for all finger and screw types. Upon gross inspection, there was no fraying or irregularity noted at the screw-tendon insertion site, and it was often difficult to identify the screw entry site through the tendon by direct visualization alone. No tendon ruptures were noted.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found that percutaneous insertion of a retrograde, intramedullary metacarpal screw causes minimal extensor tendon injury. In contrast to the limited-open approach, the percutaneous technique requires less soft tissue dissection and the possibility of reduced swelling, scarring, and risk of adhesions. Moreover, it has the potential to allow for early functional rehabilitation and reduced operative time. Interestingly, none of the tendons demonstrated fraying or rupture, as one might expect to occur with blind passage of a drill and screw through a tendon. Overall, the percutaneous, retrograde intramedullary screw technique appears to cause minimal iatrogenic injury to the extensor tendon.</p>","PeriodicalId":72481,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Both limited-open and percutaneous techniques have been described for retrograde insertion of intramedullary metacarpal screws. The percutaneous approach does not allow direct visualization of the starting point at the metacarpal head. However, it limits soft tissue dissection and expedites the procedure. The purpose of our study was to determine whether percutaneous, retrograde intramedullary screw fixation causes substantial iatrogenic damage to the extensor tendon. We also investigated whether larger sized screws would cause greater tendon injury compared to smaller screws.

Methods: Eight fresh frozen cadaver hands were used for percutaneous, retrograde intramedullary screw insertion of the index, long, ring, and small finger metacarpals of each specimen. Three different types of headless compression screws were used: a small fully threaded screw, a large fully threaded screw, and a Herbert-style partially threaded screw. After insertion, dissection was carried down to the screw entry site. Extensor tendon damage was evaluated, including tendon defect size and any irregularities noted in the tendon.

Results: There was no statistical difference with respect to how frequently a screw perforated the extensor tendons between all four finger metacarpals. Overall, the defect width caused by the screw was minimal, ranging from 0.66 mm to 1.89 mm for all finger and screw types. The large style screw did cause the greatest mean defect width, however, this was not statistically significant. When normalized to total tendon width, the defect was less than 28% of the total tendon width, with an average of 20% for all finger and screw types. Upon gross inspection, there was no fraying or irregularity noted at the screw-tendon insertion site, and it was often difficult to identify the screw entry site through the tendon by direct visualization alone. No tendon ruptures were noted.

Conclusions: This study found that percutaneous insertion of a retrograde, intramedullary metacarpal screw causes minimal extensor tendon injury. In contrast to the limited-open approach, the percutaneous technique requires less soft tissue dissection and the possibility of reduced swelling, scarring, and risk of adhesions. Moreover, it has the potential to allow for early functional rehabilitation and reduced operative time. Interestingly, none of the tendons demonstrated fraying or rupture, as one might expect to occur with blind passage of a drill and screw through a tendon. Overall, the percutaneous, retrograde intramedullary screw technique appears to cause minimal iatrogenic injury to the extensor tendon.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经皮逆行掌骨髓内螺钉置入对伸肌腱的影响。
目的:有限开放和经皮技术已被描述为逆行插入髓内掌骨螺钉。经皮入路不能直接看到掌骨头的起始点。然而,它限制了软组织的剥离,并加快了手术过程。我们研究的目的是确定经皮逆行髓内螺钉固定是否会对伸肌腱造成严重的医源性损伤。我们还研究了与小螺钉相比,大螺钉是否会造成更大的肌腱损伤。方法:采用8只新鲜冰冻手标本经皮逆行髓内螺钉插入食指、长指、无名指和小指掌骨。使用了三种不同类型的无头压缩螺钉:小型全螺纹螺钉,大型全螺纹螺钉和赫伯特式部分螺纹螺钉。置入后,将剥离物进行至螺钉入钉部位。评估伸肌腱损伤,包括肌腱缺损大小和任何不规则的肌腱。结果:螺钉在所有四指掌骨间刺穿伸肌腱的频率无统计学差异。总体而言,螺钉引起的缺损宽度最小,所有手指和螺钉类型的缺损宽度从0.66 mm到1.89 mm不等。大尺寸螺钉确实造成了最大的平均缺陷宽度,然而,这在统计学上并不显著。当归一化到肌腱总宽度时,缺损小于肌腱总宽度的28%,所有手指和螺钉类型的平均缺损为20%。经大体检查,螺钉-肌腱插入部位未见磨损或不规则,仅通过直接观察很难通过肌腱识别螺钉进入部位。未见肌腱断裂。结论:本研究发现经皮插入逆行髓内掌骨螺钉对伸肌腱损伤最小。与有限开放入路相比,经皮技术需要较少的软组织剥离,减少肿胀、疤痕和粘连风险的可能性。此外,它有可能允许早期功能康复和减少手术时间。有趣的是,所有肌腱都没有出现磨损或断裂,而人们可能会在肌腱中盲目通过钻头和螺钉。总的来说,经皮逆行髓内螺钉技术似乎对伸肌腱造成最小的医源性损伤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Amputation or Reconstruction? Development and Validation of a Patient Decision Aid for Treatment of Severe Lower-Extremity Trauma. Factors Associated with Patient Satisfaction After Periacetabular Osteotomy. Leukocyte-Poor Platelet-Rich Plasma as a Treatment for Patellar Tendinopathy A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial. Subsidence in Nonexpandable, Single-Plane Expandable, and Dual-Plane Expandable TLIFs A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study. Symptomatic Idiopathic Ulnar Nerve Instability in the Elbow Diagnostic Considerations and 1-Year Outcomes After Anterior Transposition of Ulnar Nerve.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1