What Is the Optimal Method of Fixation for Scaphoid Nonunion Relative to the Location of the Lesion?

Introduction Scaphoid nonunion is a typical complication of scaphoid fractures, with the nonunion rate varying by the location of the scaphoid. The current widely used method for treating scaphoid nonunion, which is challenging for surgeons, is the headless compression screw (HCS). Various surgical approaches, such as the scaphoid plate, have been proposed to address the problem of screw fixation; however, no consensus exists regarding the optimal treatment method. This study focused on analyzing appropriate treatment methods based on the anatomical location of the scaphoid nonunion. Methods Ninety-seven patients with scaphoid nonunion were treated between 2008 and 2023. All patients underwent treatment using 1 HCS or scaphoid volar locking plate with nonvascularized bone graft from the distal radius depending on the scaphoid's location. The scaphoid angle and bone union were confirmed using radiological examinations. The clinical evaluations included range of motion, pain, grip strength, and functional wrist scores. Results Fifty-seven patients were included in the final analysis. In the screw group, 26 patients (26/42 [62%]) obtained a bone union, and all 15 patients (15/15 [100%]) in the plate group obtained a union ( P = 0.005). In the waist group, 16 patients with screw (16/25 [64%]) and 8 using a plate (8/8 [100%]) showed bony healing. In the proximal group, 3 patients with HCS (3/9 [33%]) and 4 using plate (4/4 [100%]) showed bone union. In the distal group, 7 patients with a screw (7/8 [87%]) and 3 with the plate (3/3 [100%]) showed bone union. Significant differences were found in the waist ( P = 0.047) and proximal groups ( P = 0.026), but not in the distal group ( P = 0.521). All groups showed improved radiological angles associated with the scaphoid and better clinical outcomes postoperatively. Conclusions Plate fixation was overall superior to screw fixation for scaphoid nonunion, especially in the waist and proximal poles, providing better union rates and stability. For the distal group, both methods are effective, with the choice depending on the surgeon's expertise and patient factors. The results highlight the importance of the lesion's anatomical location in selecting the appropriate fixation method.