Treatment of tendinous mallet fingers using a Stack splint versus a dorsal glued splint

The use of Stack splint or aluminum finger splint in the conservative management of acute Doyle type IVb bony mallet finger

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcomes and direct costs of Stack splints and aluminum finger splints when used in the conservative management of patients with acute Doyle type IVb bony mallet finger.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed demographic and clinical characteristics, functional outcomes (using the Crawford classification, DIP flexion angles, and extension lag measurements), time to confirmation of union, and splint costs of 24 patients treated with aluminum finger splints (Group 1) and 20 patients treated with Stack splints (Group 2).

RESULTS

Of 44 patients, the median age was 38 (range, 20-59) years, 14 (32%) were smokers, 23 (52%) had fourth digit injuries, 32 (70%) had injuries to the dominant hand, 30 (68%) had a mechanism of injury of a fall, and median follow-up was 15 (range, 12-18) months; none of these differed significantly between Group 1 and Group 2 (all p > 0.05). In Group 1, functional outcomes were excellent and good in 14 (58%) and 10 (42%) patients, respectively; in Group 2 functional outcomes were excellent and good in 13 (62%) and 7 (35%) patients, respectively; and there was no significant difference between the groups. Median extension lag was 3.2° (range, 3.0°-3.5°) in group 1 and 3.4° (range, 3.2°-3.8°) in group 2, indicating no significant difference between groups. Complete union was confirmed radiographically in all patients. Per-patient cost was significantly lower for aluminum finger splints (0.208 TRY [US $0.03]) than for Stack splints (25 TRY [US $3.60]).

CONCLUSIONS

Good functional outcomes are possible with the use of either Stack or aluminum finger splints in patients with acute Doyle type IVb mallet finger, confirming that conservative management may be appropriate for these injuries. Direct costs of Stack splints are many times greater than those of aluminum splints, though the costs for both are relatively low.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, Level III.

Outcome Differences between Conservatively Treated Acute Bony and Tendinous Mallet Fingers

INTRODUCTION

Tendinous and bony mallets are very different injuries that present with extensor lag at the distal interphalangeal joint. This study aimed to evaluate the differences in outcomes between acute bony and tendinous mallet fingers treated conservatively with splints.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on patients with acute tendinous or bony mallets who received conservative treatment in our occupational therapy clinic. The patients were examined at an outpatient clinic, where data on pain, extension lag, and loss of flexion were recorded. Outcomes were classified according to the criteria described by Crawford.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 133 patients (43 with bony and 90 with tendinous mallets). We found that bony mallet patients were predominantly younger (mean, 36 vs. 46 years), and more likely to be female (60% vs. 34%), than tendinous mallet patients. We also found that tendinous mallet injuries predominantly affected the middle and ring fingers, while bony mallet injuries predominantly affected the ring and little fingers. The initial extensor lag was worse in tendinous than in bony mallets (median, 28° vs. 15°). In addition, patients with bony mallets had significantly better outcomes with regard to the extension lag (median 0° vs. 5° p = 0.003) and the Crawford Criteria Assessment (p = 0.004), compared with those with tendinous mallets.

DISCUSSION

Mallet injuries, both tendinous and bony, are common. They are often studied together and typically treated in the same manner using extension splints. However, evidence clearly shows that these are different injuries which present in the same manner. This study reinforces these findings and suggests that the outcome of conservative treatment is better for bony than for tendinous mallet fingers.

Comparative outcomes between surgical treatment and orthosis splint for mallet finger: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mallet finger is a commonly encountered condition in daily practice. However, there is currently no consensus on whether surgical intervention or conservative treatment with orthosis splint is superior. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compare the treatment outcomes between surgery and orthosis for bony and tendinous mallet finger. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library according to the PRISMA guidelines from inception to January 15, 2021. The primary outcome was distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint extension lag angle, and secondary outcomes were DIP joint flexion and range of motion (ROM) angle. A total of 297 studies were initially identified, of which 13 (ten retrospective non-randomized controlled studies (non-RCTs) and three RCTs) were included in the final analysis. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that there was no high level of evidence supporting the superiority of surgery over orthosis in the treatment of mallet finger. Based on the available evidence, surgical intervention and conservative treatment with splint may offer similar clinical outcomes in both bony and tendinous mallet finger.

Mallet Finger: Two Different Injuries

Mallet injuries, either tendinous or bony, are common. They are often studied together and typically treated in the same way with extension splintage for 6 to 8 weeks. Yet the evidence clearly shows there are different injuries that present in the same way. Tendinous mallet injuries present in older patients usually following a low energy injury; they are often painless. The commonly injured fingers are the middle and ring. The injuries are almost always single digit without concomitant injuries. There is an extensor lag of a mean of 31⁰ (range 3°-59⁰) in the patients treated in my unit. In contrast, bony mallet injuries occur at a younger age (mean 40 years) and are always due to high energy injuries. The injuries are always painful. The commonly injured fingers are the ring and little fingers. There are multiple injuries in 3% (range 2%-5%) and in 4% to 8% of cases, there are concomitant (nondigital) injuries according to data in my unit. Radiologically there is an appreciably smaller extensor lag; mean 13⁰ (range 0°-40⁰). In particular, bony mallet injuries are extension compression, not avulsion, fractures which should not logically be treated with an extension splint which will reproduce the direction of injury.

A single K-wire to prevent poor outcomes in closed soft-tissue mallet finger management due to patient non-compliance

INTRODUCTION

Soft-tissue mallet finger occurs due to loss of terminal extensor tendon secondary to rupture of distal phalanx. Although using noninvasive splints for 6-8 weeks is the gold standard for conservative treatment of closed soft-tissue mallet injuries, patient compliance is an important factor impacting on patient outcomes. In this study, we used a single Kirschner Wire (K-W) to fix the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint in extension in those patients failed to comply with routine splinting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective study, 190 patients with Doyle type 1 closed soft-tissue mallet finger deformity were included in four groups between 2011 and 2015. These groups were determined according to treatment modalities. Patients in the first group were treated with a finger splint (n = 109). Patients in the second group first received a finger splint and then K-W was applied due to lack of adequate compliance (n = 23). Patients in the third group were treated with K-W only (n = 47), and the fourth group did not accept surgical treatment nor conservative treatment (n = 11). After 20 weeks of follow up, we evaluated the results with functional measurements according to Crawford criteria and patient satisfaction. Additionally, the mid-term outcome was assessed with a follow-up at 2 years.

RESULTS

At 20th week postoperatively, average DIP extension lag was 6 degrees (0-30) for the first group, 6.1 degrees (0-30) for the second group, 3.8 degrees (0-25) for the third group, and 17.3 degrees (7-30) for the fourth group. Total patient satisfaction was 85%, which was considered excellent or good. Swan neck deformity was observed in 11% of patients. Osteomyelitis and KW related complications were not observed. There were no statistically significant differences between short-term and mid-term results.

CONCLUSION

Internal fixation via K-W may be a suitable treatment option compared to splint therapy for management of closed soft-tissue mallet finger in noncompliant patients. Using this treatment approach, the success rate for patients could satisfactorily be improved.

When should splint treatment start for a tendinous mallet finger? A retrospective review of 319 fingers

In a 5-year retrospective review of 319 tendinous mallet fingers, we focused on the result after splint treatment. The splint we used was a 'no pressure' thermoformed customized Stack splint. The patients wore it strictly for 8 weeks. Based on the Patel criteria, we obtained 91% good or excellent results and 9% fair or poor results. The rate of excellent results increased significantly (p < 0.001) when treatment started 20 days after the trauma. Patients were 13 times more likely to have good or excellent results with a delayed treatment. We noticed that inflammation in the distal interphalangeal joint seemed to be detrimental to the healing process. We suggest assessing if there is inflammation to anticipate the failure of treatment, which will lead to a longer treatment. Further studies on the subject should confirm this.

Optimising the conservative management of closed tendinous mallet finger injury

Mallet finger injuries are a common presentation in the emergency department. These injuries result from a forced flexion at the distal interphalangeal joint (DIPJ) that causes extensor tendon disruption, and possibly bone avulsion, at the base of the distal phalanx. This article describes the anatomy, mechanisms, classification and assessment of mallet finger injury. It reviews different types of splints used in the conservative management of closed tendinous mallet finger injury and discusses the latest evidence regarding immobilisation methods and treatment duration. Maintaining the DIPJ in extension during treatment is essential, so the article stresses the importance of patient adherence to treatment.