• Arch Orthop Trauma Surg · Jun 2022

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Comparison of extension block pinning technique versus pin orthosis-extension block pinning technique for acute mallet fractures: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

    • Mahmud Aydin, Serkan Surucu, Sercan Capkin, and Dogan Atlihan.
    • Haseki Education Research Hospital, Ugur Mumcu Mahallesi, Belediye Sokak, No: 7 Sultangazi, Istanbul, Turkey. mahmut_aydn@windowslive.com.
    • Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022 Jun 1; 142 (6): 1301-1308.

    IntroductionThe extension block pinning technique (EBPT) is a popular surgical treatment for mallet fractures; however, it has several drawbacks. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare EBPT to the pin orthosis-extension block pinning method (PO-EBPT) in the treatment of mallet fractures involving more than one-third of the joint surface but without primary joint dislocation.Materials And MethodsSixty-five patients with mallet fractures were randomized into two groups between June 2017 and January 2020: Group I (33 patients) was treated with EBPT and group II (32 patients) was treated with PO-EBPT. Five patients were lost to follow up due to lack of follow-up and death. There were no significant differences in the clinical and demographic characteristics of both groups. Patients were evaluated according to fracture union, extension lag, distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint range of motion, Crawford's criteria, and complication rates. The patients were followed-up post-operatively at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and annually thereafter.ResultsA total of 60 patients were randomized into two groups: one (30 patients) was treated with EBPT and the second (30 patients) with PO-EBPT. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of fracture union and active DIP joint flexion (P = 0.743 and P = 0.059, respectively). The mean extension lag of the DIP joint in the EBPT group was significantly greater than the PO-EBPT group (10° ± 9.47° vs. 4.17° ± 7.2°, P = 0.009). According to the Crawford criteria, the PO-EBPT group showed significantly better outcomes (P = 0.005). The complication rates were similar between groups (P = 0.45).ConclusionIn comparison to the EBPT technique, the group of patients operated with PO-EBPT had superior clinical outcomes and less loss of extension at the DIP joint according to the Crawford's criteria.© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…