Comparison of extension orthosis versus percutaneous pinning of the distal interphalangeal joint for closed mallet injuries

Kevin J. Renfree, Ryan A. Odgers, Cynthia C. Ivy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We compared a static extension orthosis with percutaneous pinning of the distal interphalangeal joint (DIPJ) for treatment of closed mallet injuries. After receiving counsel about treatment options, 44 patients (25 women and 19 men; mean age, 57 years) freely chose orthosis and 18 patients (5 women and 13 men; mean age, 51 years) chose pinning. Both the extension orthosis and the pin remained in place for 6 weeks; the pin then was removed, and the care in both groups was transitioned to nighttime orthosis use for an additional 6 weeks. The patients in the pin group were allowed to immediately resume unrestricted activity postoperatively. The mean follow-up was 32 months in the orthosis group and 19 months in the pin group. Final residual extensor lag was better in the pin group (5 vs 10 degrees, P = 0.048). Improvement between the groups was in favor of percutaneous pinning (36 vs 17 degrees, P = 0.001). No correlation was seen between time to treatment (≤14 vs >14 days from injury) and final extensor lag in either group (P = 0.85). The final mean DIPJ flexion was 53 degrees for orthosis and 46 degrees for pinning. Among the patients, 93% of the orthosis group and 100% of the pin group said that they would choose the same treatment again. Both groups had a mean of 5 hand therapy visits during treatment. Two complications occurred in the orthosis group (5%) and 3 (17%) occurred in the pin group. Extension orthotics and pinning are both well-tolerated, effective treatments of mallet injury. The techniques produce satisfactory correction of extensor lag and have high patient satisfaction. Pinning allows better correction of DIPJ extensor lag and results in a smaller degree of final extensor lag. Pinning is more expensive and may result in more DIPJ stiffness (ie, loss of active flexion), but it may be justified in certain patients (eg, medical professionals, food service workers) who would have difficulty working with an orthosis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)499-503
Number of pages5
JournalAnnals of Plastic Surgery
Volume76
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2016

Fingerprint

Orthotic Devices
Joints
Wounds and Injuries
Therapeutics
Food Services
Splints
Patient Satisfaction
Hand

Keywords

  • extensor lag
  • mallet finger
  • orthosis
  • percutaneous pinning
  • splint

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Comparison of extension orthosis versus percutaneous pinning of the distal interphalangeal joint for closed mallet injuries. / Renfree, Kevin J.; Odgers, Ryan A.; Ivy, Cynthia C.

In: Annals of Plastic Surgery, Vol. 76, No. 5, 01.05.2016, p. 499-503.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Renfree, Kevin J. ; Odgers, Ryan A. ; Ivy, Cynthia C. / Comparison of extension orthosis versus percutaneous pinning of the distal interphalangeal joint for closed mallet injuries. In: Annals of Plastic Surgery. 2016 ; Vol. 76, No. 5. pp. 499-503.
@article{657c2c11a9784a9eb2241c64ca7c46bd,
title = "Comparison of extension orthosis versus percutaneous pinning of the distal interphalangeal joint for closed mallet injuries",
abstract = "We compared a static extension orthosis with percutaneous pinning of the distal interphalangeal joint (DIPJ) for treatment of closed mallet injuries. After receiving counsel about treatment options, 44 patients (25 women and 19 men; mean age, 57 years) freely chose orthosis and 18 patients (5 women and 13 men; mean age, 51 years) chose pinning. Both the extension orthosis and the pin remained in place for 6 weeks; the pin then was removed, and the care in both groups was transitioned to nighttime orthosis use for an additional 6 weeks. The patients in the pin group were allowed to immediately resume unrestricted activity postoperatively. The mean follow-up was 32 months in the orthosis group and 19 months in the pin group. Final residual extensor lag was better in the pin group (5 vs 10 degrees, P = 0.048). Improvement between the groups was in favor of percutaneous pinning (36 vs 17 degrees, P = 0.001). No correlation was seen between time to treatment (≤14 vs >14 days from injury) and final extensor lag in either group (P = 0.85). The final mean DIPJ flexion was 53 degrees for orthosis and 46 degrees for pinning. Among the patients, 93{\%} of the orthosis group and 100{\%} of the pin group said that they would choose the same treatment again. Both groups had a mean of 5 hand therapy visits during treatment. Two complications occurred in the orthosis group (5{\%}) and 3 (17{\%}) occurred in the pin group. Extension orthotics and pinning are both well-tolerated, effective treatments of mallet injury. The techniques produce satisfactory correction of extensor lag and have high patient satisfaction. Pinning allows better correction of DIPJ extensor lag and results in a smaller degree of final extensor lag. Pinning is more expensive and may result in more DIPJ stiffness (ie, loss of active flexion), but it may be justified in certain patients (eg, medical professionals, food service workers) who would have difficulty working with an orthosis.",
keywords = "extensor lag, mallet finger, orthosis, percutaneous pinning, splint",
author = "Renfree, {Kevin J.} and Odgers, {Ryan A.} and Ivy, {Cynthia C.}",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/SAP.0000000000000315",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "76",
pages = "499--503",
journal = "Annals of Plastic Surgery",
issn = "0148-7043",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of extension orthosis versus percutaneous pinning of the distal interphalangeal joint for closed mallet injuries

AU - Renfree, Kevin J.

AU - Odgers, Ryan A.

AU - Ivy, Cynthia C.

PY - 2016/5/1

Y1 - 2016/5/1

N2 - We compared a static extension orthosis with percutaneous pinning of the distal interphalangeal joint (DIPJ) for treatment of closed mallet injuries. After receiving counsel about treatment options, 44 patients (25 women and 19 men; mean age, 57 years) freely chose orthosis and 18 patients (5 women and 13 men; mean age, 51 years) chose pinning. Both the extension orthosis and the pin remained in place for 6 weeks; the pin then was removed, and the care in both groups was transitioned to nighttime orthosis use for an additional 6 weeks. The patients in the pin group were allowed to immediately resume unrestricted activity postoperatively. The mean follow-up was 32 months in the orthosis group and 19 months in the pin group. Final residual extensor lag was better in the pin group (5 vs 10 degrees, P = 0.048). Improvement between the groups was in favor of percutaneous pinning (36 vs 17 degrees, P = 0.001). No correlation was seen between time to treatment (≤14 vs >14 days from injury) and final extensor lag in either group (P = 0.85). The final mean DIPJ flexion was 53 degrees for orthosis and 46 degrees for pinning. Among the patients, 93% of the orthosis group and 100% of the pin group said that they would choose the same treatment again. Both groups had a mean of 5 hand therapy visits during treatment. Two complications occurred in the orthosis group (5%) and 3 (17%) occurred in the pin group. Extension orthotics and pinning are both well-tolerated, effective treatments of mallet injury. The techniques produce satisfactory correction of extensor lag and have high patient satisfaction. Pinning allows better correction of DIPJ extensor lag and results in a smaller degree of final extensor lag. Pinning is more expensive and may result in more DIPJ stiffness (ie, loss of active flexion), but it may be justified in certain patients (eg, medical professionals, food service workers) who would have difficulty working with an orthosis.

AB - We compared a static extension orthosis with percutaneous pinning of the distal interphalangeal joint (DIPJ) for treatment of closed mallet injuries. After receiving counsel about treatment options, 44 patients (25 women and 19 men; mean age, 57 years) freely chose orthosis and 18 patients (5 women and 13 men; mean age, 51 years) chose pinning. Both the extension orthosis and the pin remained in place for 6 weeks; the pin then was removed, and the care in both groups was transitioned to nighttime orthosis use for an additional 6 weeks. The patients in the pin group were allowed to immediately resume unrestricted activity postoperatively. The mean follow-up was 32 months in the orthosis group and 19 months in the pin group. Final residual extensor lag was better in the pin group (5 vs 10 degrees, P = 0.048). Improvement between the groups was in favor of percutaneous pinning (36 vs 17 degrees, P = 0.001). No correlation was seen between time to treatment (≤14 vs >14 days from injury) and final extensor lag in either group (P = 0.85). The final mean DIPJ flexion was 53 degrees for orthosis and 46 degrees for pinning. Among the patients, 93% of the orthosis group and 100% of the pin group said that they would choose the same treatment again. Both groups had a mean of 5 hand therapy visits during treatment. Two complications occurred in the orthosis group (5%) and 3 (17%) occurred in the pin group. Extension orthotics and pinning are both well-tolerated, effective treatments of mallet injury. The techniques produce satisfactory correction of extensor lag and have high patient satisfaction. Pinning allows better correction of DIPJ extensor lag and results in a smaller degree of final extensor lag. Pinning is more expensive and may result in more DIPJ stiffness (ie, loss of active flexion), but it may be justified in certain patients (eg, medical professionals, food service workers) who would have difficulty working with an orthosis.

KW - extensor lag

KW - mallet finger

KW - orthosis

KW - percutaneous pinning

KW - splint

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964690890&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84964690890&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000315

DO - 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000315

M3 - Article

C2 - 25144418

AN - SCOPUS:84964690890

VL - 76

SP - 499

EP - 503

JO - Annals of Plastic Surgery

JF - Annals of Plastic Surgery

SN - 0148-7043

IS - 5

ER -