Osseöz Mallet Parmak Tedavisinde Konservatif Tedavinin Sonuçları: Retrospektif Olgu Serisi

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• osseöz mallet
• konservatif tedavi
• perkütan
• K teli

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

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• osseous mallet
• conservative treatment
• percutaneous
• K wire

Kaynakça

1. 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. 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. 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. 4. Crawford GP. The molded polythene splint for mallet finger deformities. J Hand Surg Am. 1984;9:231–37.
5. 5. Wada T, Oda T. Mallet fingers with bone avulsion and DIP joint subluxation. J Hand Surg European Vol. 2015;40:8–15.
6. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 19. Valdes K, Naughton N, Algar L. Conservative treatment of mallet finger: a systematic review. J Hand Ther. 2015;28:237–46.
20. 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. 21. Stern PJ, Kastrup JJ. Complications and prognosis of treatment of mallet finger. J Hand Surg Am. 1988;13:329–34.
22. 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. 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.