Osseöz Mallet Parmak Tedavisinde Konservatif Tedavinin Sonuçları: Retrospektif Olgu Serisi

Year 2022, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, 44 - 48, 01.04.2022

Murat Altan Mehmet Demirel Ömer Ayık

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, osseöz mallet parmaklarda konservatif tedavinin klinik ve radyolojik sonuçlarını araştırmaktır.
Materyal ve Metot: Osseöz mallet parmak yaralanması tanısı alan 26 hasta (17 erkek, 9 kadın; ortalama yaş=32,4 yaş aralığı=18–48) retrospektif olarak incelendi. Mallet parmak yaralanmaları Wehbe- Schneider sınıflamasına göre sınıflandırıldı. Anteroposterior ve lateral grafilerde distal interfalangeal eklem (DIE) açılanması, radyografik kaynama, osteoartrit ve dorsal fragman varlığı incelendi. Fonksiyonel sonuçları değerlendirmek için Crawford kriterleri kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Wehbe-Schneider sınıflamasına göre 13 hasta tip IA, 11 hasta tip IB ve 2 hasta tip IC idi. Travma sonrası kliniğimize ortalama başvuru süresi 1,09 gün (aralık, 0–9) idi. Ortalama takip süresi 7,38 aydı (aralık=6–10 ay). Son kontrollerde ağrı için ortalama postoperatif vizüel analog skala skoru 0,01 (aralık=0–2) idi. Ortalama DIP ekstansiyon defisiti 4,03° (aralık=0–10°) olarak kaydedildi. Son kontrolde 7 hastada dorsal hörgüç saptandı. Crawford kriterlerine göre fonksiyonel sonuçlar 9 hastada mükemmel, 12 hastada iyi, 4 hastada orta ve 1 hastada kötü olarak belirlendi.
Sonuç: Bu çalışma, osseöz mallet parmakların tedavisinde konservatif tedavinin, tatmin edici radyolojik ve klinik sonuçlarla birlikte etkili bir tedavi yöntemi olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

osseöz mallet, konservatif tedavi, perkütan, K teli

Results of Conservative Treatment in Osseous Mallet Finger: A Retrospective Case Series

Abstract

Aim: This study investigated conservative treatment’s clinical and radiological results in osseous mallet fingers.
Material and Method: 26 patients (17 males, 9 females; mean age=32.4 age range=18–48) diagnosed with osseous mallet finger injury were retrospectively reviewed and included in this retrospective study. Mallet finger injuries were categorized according to the Wehbe-Schneider classification. Distal interphalangeal joint (DIJ) angulation, radiographic union, osteoarthritis, and dorsal fragment occurrence were examined on anteroposterior and lateral X-rays. Crawford’s criteria were used to evaluate the functional outcomes.
Results: According to Wehbe-Schneider classification, 13 patients were type IA, 11 were type IB, and 2 were type IC. The mean time of the admission to our clinic after trauma was 1.09 days (range, 0–9). The mean follow-up was 7.38 months (range=6–10 months). The mean postoperative visual analog scale score for pain was 0.01 (range=0–2) at the last visits. The mean DIP extension deficits were 4.03° (range=0–10°). A dorsal hump was detected in 7 patients at the last follow-up. According to Crawford’s criteria, functional outcomes were perfect in 9 patients, as good in 12, moderate in 4, and poor in 1.
Conclusion: Evidence from this study has revealed that conservative treatment is an effective treatment modality in the management of osseous mallet fingers with satisfactory radiological and clinical outcomes.

Keywords

osseous mallet, conservative treatment, percutaneous, K wire

References

• 1. Zhang W, Zhang X, Zhao G, Gao S, Yu Z. Pressing fixation of mallet finger fractures with the end of a K-wire (a new fixation technique for mallet fractures). Injury. 2016;47:377–82.
• 2. Gruber JS, Bot AGJ, RingDA. Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing night splinting with no splinting after treatment of mallet finger. Hand. 2014;9:145–50.
• 3. BoteroSS, Diaz JJH, Benaida A, Collon S, Facca S, Liverneaux PA. Review of acute traumatic closed mallet finger injuries in adults. Arch Plast Surg. 2016;43:134–44.
• 4. Crawford GP. The molded polythene splint for mallet finger deformities. J Hand Surg Am. 1984;9:231–37.
• 5. Wada T, Oda T. Mallet fingers with bone avulsion and DIP joint subluxation. J Hand Surg European Vol. 2015;40:8–15.
• 6. Akgun U, Bulut T, Zengin EC, Tahta M, Sener M. Extension block technique for mallet fractures: a comparison of one and two dorsal pins. J Hand Surg European Vol. 2016;41:701–06.
• 7. Pegoli L, Toh S, Arai K, Fukuda A, Nishikawa S, Vallejo IG. The Ishiguro extension block technique for the treatment of mallet finger fracture: indications and clinical results. J Hand Surg Am. 2003;28:15–17.
• 8. Hofmeister EP, Mazurek MT, Shin AY, Bishop AT. Extension block pinning for large mallet fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2003;28:453–59.
• 9. Lee SK, Kim KJ, Yang DS, Moon KH, Choy WS. Modified extension-block K-wire fixation technique for the treatment of bony mallet finger. Orthopedics. 2010;33:728.
• 10. CheeWH, Gunasagaran J, Ahmad TSA. Comparison of delta wire technique versus extension block pinning in the treatment of bony Mallet finger. Handchirurgie Mikrochirurgie Plast Chir. 2020;52:176–81.
• 11. Batıbay SG, Akgül T, Bayram, Ayık Ö, Durmaz H. Conservative management equally effective to new suture anchor technique for acute mallet finger deformity: A prospective randomized clinical trial. J Hand Ther. 2018;31:429–36.
• 12. Shimura H, Wakabayashi Y, Nimura AA. Novel closed reduction with extension block and flexion block using Kirschner wires and microscrew fixation for mallet fractures. J. Orthop. Sci. 2014;19:308–12.
• 13. Kang GCW, Yam A, San Phoon E, Lee JYL, Teoh LC. The hook plate technique for fixation of phalangeal avulsion fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(11): e72.
• 14. Çapkın S, Buyuk AF, Sürücü S, Bakan OM, Atlihan D. Extension-block pinning to treat bony mallet finger: Is a transfixation pin necessary? Turkish J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019;25:281–86.
• 15. Garg BK, Waghmare GB, Singh S, Jadhav KB. Mallet Finger Fracture Treated with Delta Wiring Technique: A Case Report of a New Fixation Technique. J Orthop Case Rep. 2020;10:98–101.
• 16. Lu YH, Wu CC, Hsieh CPA. Modified pull-out wire technique for acute mallet fracture of the finger. Indian J Orthop. 2018;52:611–15.
• 17. Ayhan E, Kuzucu Y, Aslaner EE, Tuna Z. Evaluating Stack Splint Use for Mallet Finger. J Hand Surg (Asian-Pacific Vol.)2021;26:47–51.
• 18. Valdes K, Naughton N, Algar LICF. components of outcome measures for mallet finger: A systematic review. J Hand Ther. 2016;29:388–95.
• 19. Valdes K, Naughton N, Algar L. Conservative treatment of mallet finger: a systematic review. J Hand Ther. 2015;28:237–46.
• 20. Roh YH, Lee BK, Park MH, Noh JH, Gong HS, Baek GH. Effects of health literacy on treatment outcome and satisfaction in patients with mallet finger injury. J Hand Ther. 2016;29:459–64.
• 21. Stern PJ, Kastrup JJ. Complications and prognosis of treatment of mallet finger. J Hand Surg Am. 1988;13:329–34.
• 22. Smit JM, Beets MR, Zeebregts CJ, Rood A, Welters CFM. Treatment options for mallet finger: a review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1624–9.
• 23. Geyman JP, Fink K, Sullivan SD. Conservative versus surgical treatment of mallet finger: a pooled quantitative literature evaluation. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1988;11:382–90.