Table 6. Comparison of intramedullary diameter in various studies (mm).
| Author | n | Study type | 1st MC | 2nd MC | 3rd MC | 4th MC | 5th MC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our study, India |
100 | CT scan | 6.0 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 3.8 |
| Michael Okoli, Philadelphia 8 |
57 | CT scan | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 3.0 | |
| Abdullah Örs, Turkey 9 |
105 | CT scan | 3.2 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 4.1 | |
| Andrew Sephien, Florida 10 | 140 | X-ray | 3.6 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 4.1 | |
| Don Hoang, Seattle 17 |
100 | CT scan | 5.7 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 3.7 |
| Mark L. Dunleavy, USA 16 |
111 | CT scan | 3.1 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 3.3 |
Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; MC, metacarpal.