The Journal of hand surgery · 2017
Surgical and Nonsurgical Management of Mallet Finger: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lin James S, Samora Julie Balch
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The current literature describes multiple surgical and nonsurgical techniques for the management of mallet finger injuries, and there is no consensus on the indications for surgical treatment. The objective of this study was to determine, through a literature review, if any conclusions can be drawn concerning the indications for surgery in mallet finger injuries; the treatment outcomes of surgical versus nonsurgical management; the most effective methods of surgical and nonsurgical treatment; and the most common treatment complications of mallet finger injuries.
METHODS: A systematic review of multiple databases was performed. English language clinical studies evaluating therapeutic interventions for mallet fingers that reported objective, standardized outcome measures were included. Basic science studies, cadaveric studies, conference abstracts, level V evidence studies, studies lacking statistical data, and tendinous injuries other than mallet fingers were excluded. Salvage procedures and studies evaluating exclusively chronic lesions were also excluded.
RESULTS: Forty-four studies that reported clinical outcomes for the treatment of mallet finger injuries, 22 evaluating surgical treatments and 17 studies investigating nonsurgical treatments were included. The average distal interphalangeal joint extensor lag was 5.7° after surgical treatment and 7.6° after nonsurgical treatment. Complication rates of surgical and nonsurgical interventions were comparable (14.5% and 12.8%, respectively). Five studies directly compared the outcomes of surgical with nonsurgical management, with mixed results and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: Both surgical and nonsurgical treatments of mallet finger injuries lead to excellent clinical outcomes. Insufficient evidence is available to determine when surgical intervention is indicated. Based on our literature review, it appears that these treatments are equivalent and should be individualized to the patient.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.
METHODS: A systematic review of multiple databases was performed. English language clinical studies evaluating therapeutic interventions for mallet fingers that reported objective, standardized outcome measures were included. Basic science studies, cadaveric studies, conference abstracts, level V evidence studies, studies lacking statistical data, and tendinous injuries other than mallet fingers were excluded. Salvage procedures and studies evaluating exclusively chronic lesions were also excluded.
RESULTS: Forty-four studies that reported clinical outcomes for the treatment of mallet finger injuries, 22 evaluating surgical treatments and 17 studies investigating nonsurgical treatments were included. The average distal interphalangeal joint extensor lag was 5.7° after surgical treatment and 7.6° after nonsurgical treatment. Complication rates of surgical and nonsurgical interventions were comparable (14.5% and 12.8%, respectively). Five studies directly compared the outcomes of surgical with nonsurgical management, with mixed results and recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: Both surgical and nonsurgical treatments of mallet finger injuries lead to excellent clinical outcomes. Insufficient evidence is available to determine when surgical intervention is indicated. Based on our literature review, it appears that these treatments are equivalent and should be individualized to the patient.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.