Fix the phalanx: A meta-analysis comparing intramedullary screws, pinning, plates, and lag screws for closed extra-articular proximal phalanx fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proximal phalanx fractures are common hand injuries with multiple fixation options. This meta-analysis compared outcomes of closed extra-articular fractures treated with intramedullary screws (IMS), percutaneous pinning (PCP), plating, or lag screws. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases (January 2010-May 2025) was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes were complication and revision rates; secondary outcomes included immobilization duration, total active motion [TAM] and grip strength. Data were pooled using random- or fixed-effects models based on heterogeneity. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using validated tools. RESULTS: Eleven studies (19 treatment arms; 403 patients; 528 fractures) were included: IMS (n = 104), PCP (n = 285), plating (n = 100), and lag screws (n = 39). Mean age was 39 years; mean follow-up, 16.4 months. IMS had the lowest pooled complication rates (major: 0.96%; minor: 2.1%). Compared with IMS, plating had higher odds of major complications (OR 12.63, 95% CI 1.39-114.7; p = 0.02), while minor complications were more frequent with lag screws (OR 78.3, 95% CI 4.2-1465.1; p = 0.005) and PCP (OR 18.6, 95% CI 1.7-199.6; p = 0.02). Revision rates ranged from 5.8% (IMS) to 10.3% (lag screws), without statistical significance. Immobilization was shortest with IMS (mean difference vs. PCP -3.3 weeks; p = 0.01). TAM was highest with IMS (231°) but not statistically significant (p = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Intra medullary screw fixation was associated with lower complication risk and shorter immobilization compared with other fixation methods, likely reflecting the advantages of a minimally invasive, stable construct. As current evidence is limited to short-term outcomes and heterogeneous study designs, further high-quality prospective trials with longer follow-up are needed to validate these findings and to clarify the long-term outcomes of intramedullary screw fixation, including the potential implications of cartilage damage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.057 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".