Operating room times differ for surgical fixation of metacarpal fractures: An analysis of two principally different techniques

Abstract

Introduction

Time spent in the operating room (OR) has ramifications that impact patient outcomes and the economics of patients, physicians, surgery centers, and insurance industry. For that reason, there is an incentive to seek approaches that allow shorter times to be spent in the OR. To what extent varying routine techniques impact on operating times has not been extensively studied in metacarpal fixation literature, specifically investigating retrograde threaded intramedullary nail fixations (RTNF) and comparing it to open plating fixations (OPF). The present study was designed for the purpose of comparing OR times for different but broadly adopted techniques for internal stabilization of metacarpal shaft fractures.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted for patients aged 18 and above, who over a 41-month period underwent internal fixation with RTNF or OPF for single, extra articular, closed fractures of the index through little finger metacarpals. We examined anesthesia records, which indicated total operating (“skin-to-skin”) times.

Results

A total of 81 charts remained for review after exclusions. Statistical analysis of the recorded data showed significantly shorter median OR time values for RTNF (17 minutes, IQR = 14 – 20.75) vs. OPF (36 minutes, IQR = 31.55 – 44; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Statistical analysis of data shows significantly shorter operating times to achieve satisfactory fracture stabilization using RTNF compared to OPF. Since the differences in OR time significantly differ between the two principally different surgical techniques, it should be considered when choosing which surgical technique to use. However, further review of indications and clinical outcomes is necessary to develop definitive recommendations or guidelines on which technique should be preferred, especially when considering specific patient presentations.

Level of Evidence

Retrospective Comparative Study III