Surgical Fixation of Metacarpal Shaft Fractures Using Absorbable Implants: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the proven efficacy and advantages of absorbable implants, their use for metacarpal shaft fixation has been limited. This is likely due to the high reported complication rates in early studies with polyglycolic acid (PGA) implants, notably high rates of noninfectious inflammatory reaction (5%-25%), occurring up to 30 weeks after fixation. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of newer absorbable plates and screws in the treatment of metacarpal shaft fractures. METHODS: The authors performed a systematic search of the PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases dating from 1946 to 2017. Primary outcome measures were the development of noninfectious inflammatory reaction and implant failure. RESULTS: A total of 42 metacarpal shaft fractures in 35 patients were included. The average follow-up time was 20.4 months (n = 24; range: 3.6-61 months). Only 1 case (2.4%) of noninfectious inflammatory reaction was reported with polylactic acid (PLA) plates and PLA/PGA compounds. Noninfectious inflammatory reaction was observed in 4 out of the 9 patients (44.4%) with a trimethylene carbonate/PLA compound. Symptoms appeared after an average time of 15.8 months (range: 12-19 months) post-fixation. Painless prolonged inflammation that resolved spontaneously within 6 months was reported in 7.1% of cases (n = 3). Implant failure with loss of fracture reduction was reported in 9.5% of cases (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: Newer absorbable materials appear to have significantly lower rates of noninfectious inflammatory reaction than previously reported. When compared with metallic fixation of the metacarpal shaft, absorbable fixation appears to have comparable complication rates and biomechanical properties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".