[Effectiveness comparison of open reduction and hook plate fixation versus closed indirect reduction and dorsal extension blocking Kirschner wire fixation for bony mallet finger].

Q3 Medicine
Wentao Zhao, Min Zhao
{"title":"[Effectiveness comparison of open reduction and hook plate fixation versus closed indirect reduction and dorsal extension blocking Kirschner wire fixation for bony mallet finger].","authors":"Wentao Zhao, Min Zhao","doi":"10.7507/1002-1892.202403084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of open reduction and hook plate fixation versus closed indirect reduction and dorsal extension blocking Kirschner wire fixation for bony mallet fingers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The clinical data of 68 patients with bony mallet finger who admitted between May 2019 and June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 33 cases were in the open group (treated with open reduction and hook plate fixation) and 35 cases were in the closed group (treated with closed indirect reduction and dorsal extension blocking Kirschner wire fixation). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of gender, age, the affected side, the affected finger, cause of injury, time from injury to operation, and Wehbé-Schneider classification ( <i>P</i>>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency, fracture healing time, time of returning to work, and postoperative complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. At 12 months after operation, visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to assess the pain of the injured finger, active flexion range of motion and extension deficit of the distal interphalangeal joint (DIP) were measured by goniometer, and the effectiveness was assessed by Crawford criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All patients in the two groups were followed up 12-26 months, with an average of 15 months. There was no significant difference in the follow-up time between the closed group and the open group ( <i>P</i>>0.05). The operation time in the closed group was shorter than that in the open group, and the intraoperative fluoroscopy times, the fracture healing time, and the time of returning to work in the closed group were more than those in the open group, and the differences were significant ( <i>P</i><0.05). In the closed group, there were 5 cases of pinning tract infection and 3 cases of small area pressure ulcer skin necrosis on the dorsal side of the finger, which were cured after intensive nursing and dressing change. Local nail depression deformity occurred in 7 cases in the open group, and the deformity disappeared after removal of plate. The incisions of the other patients healed uneventfully without complications such as infection, skin necrosis, exposure of the internal fixation, or nail deformity. There was no significant difference in the incidence of skin necrosis between the two groups ( <i>P</i>>0.05), but the differences in the incidence of infection and nail deformity between the two groups were significant ( <i>P</i><0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS score, DIP active flexion range of motion, DIP extension deficiency, or Crawford criteria evaluation between the two groups at 12 months after operation ( <i>P</i>>0.05). At last follow-up, there was no DIP osteoarthritis and joint degeneration in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Open reduction and hook plate fixation versus closed indirect reduction and dorsal extension blocking Kirschner wire fixation have their own advantages and disadvantages, but both of them have good results in the treatment of bony mallet fingers. Open reduction and hook plate fixation is recommended for young patients with bony mallet fingers who are eager to return to work.</p>","PeriodicalId":23979,"journal":{"name":"中国修复重建外科杂志","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11335589/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中国修复重建外科杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7507/1002-1892.202403084","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of open reduction and hook plate fixation versus closed indirect reduction and dorsal extension blocking Kirschner wire fixation for bony mallet fingers.

Methods: The clinical data of 68 patients with bony mallet finger who admitted between May 2019 and June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 33 cases were in the open group (treated with open reduction and hook plate fixation) and 35 cases were in the closed group (treated with closed indirect reduction and dorsal extension blocking Kirschner wire fixation). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of gender, age, the affected side, the affected finger, cause of injury, time from injury to operation, and Wehbé-Schneider classification ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency, fracture healing time, time of returning to work, and postoperative complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. At 12 months after operation, visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to assess the pain of the injured finger, active flexion range of motion and extension deficit of the distal interphalangeal joint (DIP) were measured by goniometer, and the effectiveness was assessed by Crawford criteria.

Results: All patients in the two groups were followed up 12-26 months, with an average of 15 months. There was no significant difference in the follow-up time between the closed group and the open group ( P>0.05). The operation time in the closed group was shorter than that in the open group, and the intraoperative fluoroscopy times, the fracture healing time, and the time of returning to work in the closed group were more than those in the open group, and the differences were significant ( P<0.05). In the closed group, there were 5 cases of pinning tract infection and 3 cases of small area pressure ulcer skin necrosis on the dorsal side of the finger, which were cured after intensive nursing and dressing change. Local nail depression deformity occurred in 7 cases in the open group, and the deformity disappeared after removal of plate. The incisions of the other patients healed uneventfully without complications such as infection, skin necrosis, exposure of the internal fixation, or nail deformity. There was no significant difference in the incidence of skin necrosis between the two groups ( P>0.05), but the differences in the incidence of infection and nail deformity between the two groups were significant ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS score, DIP active flexion range of motion, DIP extension deficiency, or Crawford criteria evaluation between the two groups at 12 months after operation ( P>0.05). At last follow-up, there was no DIP osteoarthritis and joint degeneration in both groups.

Conclusion: Open reduction and hook plate fixation versus closed indirect reduction and dorsal extension blocking Kirschner wire fixation have their own advantages and disadvantages, but both of them have good results in the treatment of bony mallet fingers. Open reduction and hook plate fixation is recommended for young patients with bony mallet fingers who are eager to return to work.

[开放复位和钩形钢板固定与闭合间接复位和背伸阻断 Kirschner 线固定治疗骨性槌状指的疗效比较]。
目的比较开放复位、钩形钢板固定与闭合间接复位、背伸阻断Kirschner钢丝固定治疗骨性小指的效果:回顾性分析 2019 年 5 月至 2022 年 6 月期间收治的 68 例骨性小指患者的临床资料。其中,开放组(采用开放复位、钩板固定治疗)33例,闭合组(采用闭合间接复位、背伸阻断Kirschner钢丝固定治疗)35例。两组患者在性别、年龄、患侧、患指、受伤原因、受伤至手术时间、Wehbé-Schneider分类等方面均无明显差异(P>0.05)。两组患者的手术时间、术中透视次数、骨折愈合时间、恢复工作时间和术后并发症均有记录,并进行了比较。术后12个月,采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分评估伤指疼痛情况,用测角器测量远端指间关节(DIP)的主动屈伸活动范围和伸直功能缺损,并根据Crawford标准评估疗效:两组患者均接受了 12-26 个月的随访,平均 15 个月。封闭组与开放组的随访时间无明显差异(P>0.05)。闭合组手术时间短于开放组,闭合组术中透视时间、骨折愈合时间、恢复工作时间多于开放组,差异有学意义(PP>0.05),但两组感染发生率、甲畸形发生率差异有学意义(PP>0.05)。最后一次随访时,两组患者均未出现 DIP 骨关节炎和关节退变:结论:开放复位钩板固定术与闭合间接复位背伸阻滞克氏线固定术各有优缺点,但在骨性畸形手指的治疗中均有良好效果。对于渴望重返工作岗位的年轻骨性畸形手指患者,建议采用开放复位和钩形钢板固定术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
中国修复重建外科杂志
中国修复重建外科杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11334
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信