Splinting versus Percutaneous Pinning for the Treatment of Soft Tissue Mallet Finger: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare percutaneous pinning versus splinting of soft tissue mallet finger injury to determine if there are differences in residual extensor lag and complication rates.

Methods

Patients ≥18 years of age undergoing mallet finger injury treatment from 2011 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria included bony or open mallet finger injury and incomplete documentation of residual extensor lag at final follow-up. Complications, including infection, hardware fixation failure and wound complications, were collected from follow-up clinic notes. Those treated with percutaneous pinning were compared to those treated non-surgically with splinting.

Results

Of the 150 soft tissue mallet finger injuries that met the inclusion criteria, 126 were treated with splinting, and 24 were treated with percutaneous pinning. There were no differences in residual extensor lag between groups (Splinting: 5.4°, Pinning: 5.8°, p = 0.874). However, the pinning group had a higher overall complication rate than the splinting group (20.8% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Surgery may be an effective treatment method for soft tissue mallet finger, but due to the higher rate of complication and the increased expense of a surgical procedure, splinting should be the preferred treatment method for most of these injuries. Level of Evidence: Level III (Therapeutic).