Cast selection and non-union rates for acute scaphoid fractures treated conservatively: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Cast selection for conservatively treated acute scaphoid fractures remains controversial. Cast options include short arm versus long arm, and those that include the thumb or leave it free. We sought to investigate the role of how cast choice affects nonunion rates after conservative management of scaphoid fractures. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar from inception through July 14, 2020, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We extracted information of interest, including cast type, and non-union rates at the end of the treatment period. We then performed a meta-analysis using the random-effects model. We identified seven relevant studies. Non-union was observed in 15 out of 156 (9.6%) with short-arm cast and 13 out of the 124 (10.5%) with long-arm cast (OR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.19, 3.26], p = 0.74). Non-union was observed in 18 out of 174 (10.3%) with thumb immobilization cast and 18 out of the 179 (10.1%) without thumb immobilization (OR = 0.97, 95% CI [0.49, 1.94], p = 0.69). In our study, short arm casting was proven non-inferior to long arm casting. Similarly, casts without thumb immobilization were equally as effective as casts with thumb immobilization in terms of non-union rates for acute scaphoid fractures treated non-operatively.

Keywords:

• Scaphoid bone
• fracture
• wrist Injuries
• thumb
• union
• review
• meta-analysis

Ethical approval

This study conforms to the Declaration of Helsinki ethical principles for medical research. The study is exempt from IRB.

Author contribution

All of the authors have made substantial contributions to the following areas: 1) the conception and design of the study, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, (3) final approval of the version to be submitted.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).