Protected Early Mobilization Using Buddy Taping Versus Splint Immobilization for Fifth Metacarpal Neck Fractures: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Metacarpal fractures are one of the more common fractures of the hand, with the fifth metacarpal neck fractures, commonly referred to as boxer’s fractures, comprising around 20% of all hand fractures. Currently, a variety of surgical treatment methods may be used for management, such as wire or plate fixations. Although these methods provide stable reduction, they are limited by higher costs and their invasive nature. Therefore, boxer's fractures have traditionally been treated conservatively with cast or splint immobilization, with these methods showing good functional outcomes. Recently, however, there have been studies showing similar results with the use of protected early mobilization with the use of soft wraps and buddy taping.

This study aims to compare the patient-reported functional outcomes of treating undisplaced fifth metacarpal neck fractures with protected early mobilization using buddy taping versus cast/splint immobilization with the use of the Shortened Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (quickDASH). This study will be conducted with a comprehensive literature search from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar and ScienceDirect from inception to October 2022. All randomized control trials comparing protected early mobilization with buddy taping and cast/splint immobilization of the fifth metacarpal neck fractures will be included.

  1. Bansal R, Craigen M. Fifth metacarpal neck fractures: Is follow-up required? Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume, 2007) 2007;32E:1:69–73.

  2. Dunn JC, Kusnezov N, Orr JD, Pallis M, Mitchell JS. The boxer’s fracture: splint immobilization is not necessary. Orthopedics. 2016;39(3):188e192.

  3. Pellatt R, Fomin I, Pienaar C, Bindra R, Thomas M, Tan E, et al. Is buddy taping as effective as plaster immobilization for adults with an uncomplicated neck of fifth metacarpal fracture? A randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med [Internet]. 2019;74(1):88–97. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.01.032 

  4. Zugasti Marquínez J, García Reza A, Domínguez Prado DM, Hernández González B, García Piñeiro J, Castro Menéndez M. [Translated article] Prospective study about orthopaedic treatment of fifth metacarpal neck fractures. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol [Internet]. 2022;66(3):T200–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recot.2021.09.013

  5. Martínez-Catalán N, Pajares S, Llanos L, Mahillo I, Calvo E. A prospective randomized trial comparing the functional results of buddy taping versus closed reduction and cast immobilization in patients with fifth metacarpal neck fractures. J Hand Surg Am [Internet]. 2020;45(12):1134–40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.05.013 

  6. Retrouvey H, Jakubowski J, Al-Taha M, Steve A, Augustine H, Stein MJ, et al. Prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing early protected movement and splinting for fifth metacarpal neck fracture. Plast Surg (Oakv) [Internet]. 2022;30(1):6–15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/22925503211011952

  7. van Aaken J, Fusetti C, Luchina S, Brunetti S, Beaulieu J-Y, Gayet-Ageron A, et al. Fifth metacarpal neck fractures treated with soft wrap/buddy taping compared to reduction and casting: results of a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg [Internet]. 2016;136(1):135–42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2361-0

Articles related to the one you are viewing

There are currently no results to show, please try again later

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, which permits use, share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material, as long as you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.