Conflicto de intereses: Los autores declaran no tener ningún interés financiero relacionado con el contenido de este artículo. Financiación: No hubo fuentes externas de financiación para este trabajo.

Introduction: Mallet injuries are common and usually treated conservatively. Various systematic reviews have found a lack of evidence regarding the best management, and it is still unclear. Objective: To evaluate the treatment efficacy of Stack Splinting compared to a Kirschner wire immobilization of acute closed mallet finger Doyle I. Methods: From March 2019 to February 2020, 41 patients with acute close mallet finger Doyle I were treated; 19 patients were treated with Kirschner wire and 22 with Stack splinting for a mean of 6 weeks. The average patient age at the time of the injury was 43 years. Results: Twenty-eight males and 13 females were in this study. Among them, 17 patients were injured in the little finger, 15 in the middle finger, and 9 in the ring finger. Twenty-seven of injuries suffered an aggression, 11 from falling, and 3 from sports injuries. All the fingers had typical mallet malformation. Seventeen patients treated with Kirschner wire completed the treatment with full recovery, only 7 patients treated with Stack splint completed the treatment and 15 treated with Stack splint had relapse on mallet injury. Conclusion: Kirschner wire treatment is a simple procedure, and proves in this study that has better results in patients with acute closed mallet finger Doyle I compared to Stack splint.

Background: Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is a severe form of soft tissue infection, early diagnosis, and surgical intervention are direct factors in mortality, it may arise from many infectious aetiologies, at our hospital in Mexico city, it is not uncommon that hand infection patients progress to NF, that in many cases its recognition and treatment may also be delayed, resulting in fatal outcomes. Wong et al in 2004 introduced a laboratory risk indicator for necrotizing fasciitis (LRINEC score) that utilizes common laboratory values of patients with clinical infection and stratifies them by their risk of developing NF, so the aim of our study was to validate this tool in Mexican population. Methods: We reviewed all patients with an initial diagnosis of hand infection admitted at the emergency department of our hospital in Mexico City, from April 2020 to March 2022 and examined the LRINEC score at admission, post-debridement, and at the end of the hospitalization to evaluate its usefulness in our population. Results: The LRINEC score at cut-off ≥6 reported sensitivity for the diagnosis of NF of 35.71% (95% CI 12.76-64.86%), specificity of 100% (95% CI 78.2-100%), positive predictive value of 100% (95% CI 71-100%), and negative predictive value of 62.5% (95% CI 53.01-71.12%). Conclusions: The LRINEC score is a useful tool to distinguish NF from other soft tissue infections, but it is not helpful for early recognition of NF alone, LRINEC score could predict worse hospital outcomes in patients with NF and identify the high-risk patients.