Objectives: comparison of outcomes with internal fixation versus percutaneous fixation. Material and Methods: retrospective case-control study of 58 metacarpal fractures (43 patients). Shaft fractures without joint involvement were included. Exclusion criteria were involvement of the thumb or phalange, open fracture, or more than 3 fractures in the same hand. There were 26 fractures treated with internal fixation and 32 with percutaneous fixation. With a mean follow-up of 2,5 years (range, 1-4), functional evaluation was performed by total active motion (TAM), strength grip, DASH, pain VAS, and radiographic results. Results: satisfactory outcomes were obtained with both treatments. Consolidation time and radiographic alignment were similar. All clinical objective and subjective assessments were better in the internal fixation group, as well as the rate of return to previous activities. In the internal fixation group, there was one case with nonunion, which was reoperated, and other with lack of motion. In the percutaneous group, there were 4 cases with mobility deficits. Discussion and conclusions: satisfactory results were offered by both methods, but better outcomes were obtained by internal fixation with regard to motion, strength, best facility for previous activities, and return to work and sport activities. All this was spite of the inherent complications of open surgery.

Objectives: comparison of outcomes with internal fixation versus percutaneous fixation. Material and Methods: retrospective case-control study of 58 metacarpal fractures (43 patients). Shaft fractures without joint involvement were included. Exclusion criteria were involvement of the thumb or phalange, open fracture, or more than 3 fractures in the same hand. There were 26 fractures treated with internal fixation and 32 with percutaneous fixation. With a mean follow-up of 2,5 years (range, 1-4), functional evaluation was performed by total active motion (TAM), strength grip, DASH, pain VAS, and radiographic results. Results: satisfactory outcomes were obtained with both treatments. Consolidation time and radiographic alignment were similar. All clinical objective and subjective assessments were better in the internal fixation group, as well as the rate of return to previous activities. In the internal fixation group, there was one case with nonunion, which was reoperated, and other with lack of motion. In the percutaneous group, there were 4 cases with mobility deficits. Discussion and conclusions: satisfactory results were offered by both methods, but better outcomes were obtained by internal fixation with regard to motion, strength, best facility for previous activities, and return to work and sport activities. All this was spite of the inherent complications of open surgery.