Abbonarsi

Extension pin block technique versus extension orthosis for acute bony mallet finger; a retrospective comparison - 24/08/21

Doi : 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.102764 
Gurkan Gumussuyu a, Mehmet Melih Asoglu b, Olcay Guler a, Hasan May b, Adil Turan b, Ozkan Kose b,
a Department of orthopedics and traumatology, medical faculty, Altinbas university, Istanbul, Turkey 
b Department of orthopedics and traumatology, Antalya education and research hospital, Antalya, Turkey 

Corresponding author. Antalya Egitim ve Arastirma Hastanesi, Soğuksu mah. Kazım Karabekir cd., Muratpaşa, 07100 Antalya, Turkey.Antalya Egitim ve Arastirma Hastanesi, Soğuksu mah. Kazım Karabekir cd., MuratpaşaAntalya07100Turkey

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
Articolo gratuito.

Si connetta per beneficiarne

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the clinical, radiological, aesthetic and economic outcomes of extension pin block technique and extension orthosis in closed mallet fractures with more than 1/3 of articular surface involvement without subluxation (Wehbe and Schneider classification type IB and IC).

Materials and methods

Thirty-nine patients (11 women and 28 men; mean age: 40.9±11.5 years) who had mallet fractures were retrospectively reviewed. Twenty-one patients were treated with the extension pin block technique, and the remaining 18 were treated with the extension orthosis. Fracture classification, measurement of articular surface involvement, presence of subluxation, and the fragment displacement were performed according to the Wehbe and Schneider classification. Crawford's criteria, extension lag, distal interphalangeal joint (DIPJ) range of motion, dorsal bump, and visual analog scale were evaluated. Fracture union, articular incongruity, and all other complications were followed and analyzed. The Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) was used to evaluate the aesthetic perception of the patient's finger. Direct and indirect costs were calculated for each treatment method.

Results

At the final follow-up (mean: 18.4±6.2 months), there was no significant difference with respect to clinical outcomes between groups (p=0.335) and pain (p=0.131). Fracture union was achieved in all cases. Both extension lag (p=0.150) and DIPJ flexion (p=0.261) were not different between groups. Dorsal bump was more frequent in the conservative treatment group (p=0.048). Aesthetic scores were similar between groups (p=0.477), but female patients rated significantly lower aesthetic scores than males (p=0.003) regardless of the treatment method. The direct medical (p=0.001), indirect (p=0.009) and cumulative costs (p=0.001) were significantly higher in surgical treatment group. One pin tract infection, one nail dystrophy, and one joint space narrowing were seen in the surgical treatment group versus none in the conservative treatment group (p=0.698).

Conclusions

Conservative treatment does not result in inferior clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes compared to surgical fixation in closed mallet fractures with more than 1/3 of articular surface involvement without subluxation. Extension orthosis which is non-invasive, and cheap, maybe the treatment of choice in closed mallet fractures.

Level of evidence

IV; Retrospective cohort.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Keywords : Mallet finger, Bony mallet, Extension pin block, Conservative treatment, Extension splinting


Mappa


© 2020  Elsevier Masson SAS. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 107 - N° 5

Articolo 102764- settembre 2021 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Long-term outcome of a “short” anterograde homodigital neurovascular island flap with a simple or double V-Y plasty
  • Daniel Estoppey, Germain Pomares, Thomas Jager
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Open dorsal distal interphalangeal joint dislocations: A report of 20 cases
  • Terrence Jose Jerome

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.