Background: Base Surgery for metacarpal fractures is complicated by the wide variety of treatment options. This research fills a gap in the literature by contrasting the two treatment options for unstable base metacarpal fractures: fixation and temporary arthrodesis. Methods Patients with closed metacarpal fractures who satisfied certain criteria participated in this randomised experiment at a university hospital. Subjects were randomly allocated to either Group A (fixation methods) or Group B. (temporary arthrodesis). Information about the patients' demographics, preoperative evaluations, surgical procedures, and recovery schedules were documented. Subjective and objective ratings, imaging studies, and objective assessments of function all contributed to the final tally. FindingsFifteen participants were included in the research overall. The two groups were similar to one another demographically. Differences emerged between the groups with respect to the length of the operation, the quantity of C-arm pictures, and the time it took to achieve union. Total Active Motion (TAM) and other objective evaluation indicators showed that both groups performed similarly. The occurrence of complications was similar across the two groups. Results from treating unstable base metacarpal fractures with either fixation or temporary arthrodesis were positive, the authors write. The two groups were comparable in terms of demographics, postoperative functional evaluations, and complication rates.roups.