Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 27 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 356 - 361 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469 İndeks Tarihi: 16-05-2022

Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury

Öz:
BACKGROUND: Although there is consensus that closed tendinous mallet finger injuries should be treated conservatively, the best method of immobilization to be used is not clear and the existing data in the literature are not conclusive. The aim of this study is to compare the results of four different immobilization methods used in the conservative treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury. METHODS: Ninety-six patients with tendinous mallet finger injury were treated with four different immobilization methods (stack orthosis, thermoplastic orthosis, aluminum orthosis, and Kirschner wire [K-wire] immobilization). The patients then were assessed with distal interphalangeal joint extensor lag, total active motion (TAM), grip strength, and Abouna and Brown Criteria. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between four immobilization methods in extensor lag and TAM at the 8th and 12th weeks. According to grip strength assessment, stack orthosis group was found to have significantly better results than the K-wire and aluminum orthosis groups at 12 weeks, while the difference was not significant versus the thermoplastic orthosis group. CONCLUSION: In this first study making multiple comparisons between four immobilization methods used in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury, the only significant difference detected between the groups was the superior grip strength with stack orthosis compared with K-wire immobilization and aluminum orthosis.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Saito K, Kihara H. A randomized controlled trial of the effect of 2-step orthosis treatment for a mallet finger of tendinous origin. J Hand Ther 2016;29:433–9.
  • 2. Garberman SF, Diao E, Peimer CA. Mallet finger: Results of early versus delayed closed treatment. J Hand Surg Am 1994;19:850–2.
  • 3. Warren RA, Kay NR, Ferguson DG. Mallet finger: Comparison between operative and conservative management in those cases failing to be cured by splintage. J Hand Surg Br 1988;13:159–60.
  • 4. Bendre AA, Hartigan BJ, Kalainov DM. Mallet finger. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2005;13:336–44.
  • 5. Pike J, Mulpuri K, Metzger M, Ng G, Wells N, Goetz T. Blinded, prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing volar, dorsal, and custom thermoplastic splinting in treatment of acute mallet finger. J Hand Surg Am 2010;35:580–8.
  • 6. Handoll HH, Vaghela MV. Interventions for treating mallet finger injuries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;3:CD004574.
  • 7. Tolkien Z, Potter S, Burr N, Gardiner MD, Blazeby JM, Jain A, et al. Conservative management of mallet injuries: A national survey of current practice in the UK. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017;70:901–7.
  • 8. Witherow EJ, Peiris CL. Custom-made finger orthoses have fewer skin complications than prefabricated finger orthoses in the management of mallet injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015;96:1913–23.e1.
  • 9. Bloom JM, Khouri JS, Hammert WC. Current concepts in the evaluation and treatment of mallet finger injury. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;132:560e–6.
  • 10. Valdes K, Naughton N, Algar L. Conservative treatment of mallet finger: A systematic review. J Hand Ther 2015;28:237–45.
  • 11. Abouna JM, Brown H. The treatment of mallet finger. The results in a series of 148 consecutive cases and a review of the literature. Br J Surg 1968;55:653–67.
  • 12. Vernet P, Igeta Y, Facca S, Toader H, Hidalgo Diaz JJ, Liverneaux P. Treatment of tendinous mallet fingers using a Stack splint versus a dorsal glued splint. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019;29:591–6.
  • 13. O’Brien LJ, Bailey MJ. Single blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing dorsal aluminum and custom thermoplastic splints to stack splint for acute mallet finger. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011;92:191–8.
  • 14. Renfree KJ, Odgers RA, Ivy CC. Comparison of extension orthosis versus percutaneous pinning of the distal interphalangeal joint for closed mallet injuries. Ann Plast Surg 2016;76:499–503.
  • 15. Nagura S, Suzuki T, Iwamoto T, Matsumura N, Nakamura M, Matsumoto M, et al. A comparison of splint versus pinning the distal interphalangeal joint for acute closed tendinous mallet injuries. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol 2020;25:172–6.
  • 16. Kinninmonth AW, Holburn F. A comparative controlled trial of a new perforated splint and a traditional splint in the treatment of mallet finger. J Hand Surg Br 1986;11:261–2.
APA Ozkan S, Berköz Ö (2021). Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury. , 356 - 361. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469
Chicago Ozkan Safiye,Berköz Ömer Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury. (2021): 356 - 361. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469
MLA Ozkan Safiye,Berköz Ömer Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury. , 2021, ss.356 - 361. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469
AMA Ozkan S,Berköz Ö Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury. . 2021; 356 - 361. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469
Vancouver Ozkan S,Berköz Ö Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury. . 2021; 356 - 361. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469
IEEE Ozkan S,Berköz Ö "Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury." , ss.356 - 361, 2021. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469
ISNAD Ozkan, Safiye - Berköz, Ömer. "Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury". (2021), 356-361. https://doi.org/10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469
APA Ozkan S, Berköz Ö (2021). Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, 27(3), 356 - 361. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469
Chicago Ozkan Safiye,Berköz Ömer Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi 27, no.3 (2021): 356 - 361. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469
MLA Ozkan Safiye,Berköz Ömer Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, vol.27, no.3, 2021, ss.356 - 361. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469
AMA Ozkan S,Berköz Ö Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi. 2021; 27(3): 356 - 361. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469
Vancouver Ozkan S,Berköz Ö Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi. 2021; 27(3): 356 - 361. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469
IEEE Ozkan S,Berköz Ö "Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury." Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, 27, ss.356 - 361, 2021. 10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469
ISNAD Ozkan, Safiye - Berköz, Ömer. "Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury". Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi 27/3 (2021), 356-361. https://doi.org/10.14744/tjtes.2021.35469