Affiliation:
1. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
2. Orthopaedic Surgery, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania
3. Curtis National Hand Center, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital.
Abstract
Background:
Previous failed reduction and certain radiographic indicators historically have been used to differentiate simple and complex metacarpophalangeal joint (MPJ) dislocations in children, the latter of which warrants open reduction. This investigation aimed to determine the necessity for open reduction with these indicators and establish a new treatment algorithm and educational focus for these rare injuries.
Methods:
A 12-year retrospective study was conducted on all children with MPJ dislocations at a single pediatric hospital. The rates of successful closed reduction, number of reduction attempts, and radiographic findings were detailed. Operative details and postoperative outcomes were also gathered.
Results:
Thirty-three patients with a mean age of 11.1 years were included. Most were male [n = 27 (82%)] and had undergone two or more previous reduction attempts at an outside facility. Stable closed reduction was then achieved outside of the operating room in five patients and in the operating room under general anesthesia in another 14, for a total of 19 of 33 patients (57.6%). The thumb was injured most often [n = 19 (57.6%)] and more likely to undergo successful closed reduction (P = 0.04). There was no relationship between number of previous reduction attempts and ability to achieve closed reduction (P = 0.72). Neither joint-space widening nor proximal phalanx bayonetting was correlated radiographically with failure of closed reduction (P = 0.22 and P = 1, respectively).
Conclusions:
This study supports closed reduction of pediatric MPJ dislocations in the operating room under general anesthesia before conversion to open reduction, regardless of injury characteristics or previous reduction attempts. This strategy is likely to limit unnecessary open surgery and related risks.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
Risk, IV.
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)