Scribd
Upload
41 views1 page

Mallet Finger Treatment Study Results

The study was a randomized prospective study of 29 patients between the ages of 17-61 who were treated for mallet finger injuries between 2013-2015. Patients provided consent and were randomized into surgical or conservative treatment groups. Inclusion criteria required Wehbe-Schneider type I or II fractures, while those with type C fractures were excluded. The majority of injuries were in male patients resulting from falls or sports injuries. Outcomes were assessed using Crawford's criteria and Abouna and Brown's criteria, focusing on extension deficit, flexion, stiffness, and pain.

Uploaded by

Edsdmre dsds
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
41 views1 page

Mallet Finger Treatment Study Results

The study was a randomized prospective study of 29 patients between the ages of 17-61 who were treated for mallet finger injuries between 2013-2015. Patients provided consent and were randomized into surgical or conservative treatment groups. Inclusion criteria required Wehbe-Schneider type I or II fractures, while those with type C fractures were excluded. The majority of injuries were in male patients resulting from falls or sports injuries. Outcomes were assessed using Crawford's criteria and Abouna and Brown's criteria, focusing on extension deficit, flexion, stiffness, and pain.

Uploaded by

Edsdmre dsds
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

The study was designed as a randomized - prospective study and included 29 patients (22 male, 7 female)

aged between 17 and 61 years (mean: 36.4 years) who were scheduled for mallet finger treatment between June 2013
and July 2015. All patients who agreed to participate in this study gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion
in the study for expected complications and results of the treatment procedure. The patients were included in the study
after approval was received from the Ethics Committee (2014/288). Patients were randomized into two groups using
closed opaque envelopes. Inclusion criteria were having Wehbe–Schneider tip I and II fractures; Wehbe–Schneider
subtype A and B fractures, ability to provide closed reduction, and voluntariness to participate in the study. Patients
with Wehbe–Schneider subtype C fractures were excluded from the study because subtype C fractures mostly require
surgery, conservative treatment has poor results. Formatted: Pattern: Clear (White)

Examining the types of injuries; in the surgical group, four patients had sports injuries, two patients were Formatted: Normal, Justified, Indent: First line: 0.49"
involved in an assault, and eight patients had fallen from a height; in conservative group, nine patients presented to the
ED (emergency department) after falling, two patients had sports trauma, two patients were in an assault, and two
patients had occupational accidents. One patient presented with bilateral mallet finger deformity, conservative
treatment was performed on the left hand and open surgery and the suture anchor technique was performed on the right
hand. The affected fingers were fore finger (n=4), ring finger (n=7), little finger (n=17), and index finger (n=1), and
the majority of the patients were male, which matched with the literature. Two sets of criteria were used t o assess the
functional outcomes. First was Crawford’s criteria [28], which gives ‘excellent’ for full DIP extension, full flexion, no
pain; ‘good’ for 0-10° of extension deficit, full flexion, no pain, ‘fair’ for 10-25° of extension deficit, any flexion loss,
no pain and ‘poor’ for poor: >25° of extension deficit or persistent pain and the second was Abouna and Brown’s
criteria [29], which designates ‘success’ for extensor lag <5°, no stiffness, normal flexion, and extension; ‘improved’
for extension loss 6-15°, no stiffness, normal flexion and ‘failure’ for extension loss >15°, DIP stiffness, impaired
flexion.

You might also like