Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis of the Distal Interphalangeal Joint: A Follow-Up Study of 12 Years After Nonsurgical Treatment of Mallet Finger Fractures

Slichter, Malou E.; Mathijssen, Nina Maria Cornelia; Yau, C.; Koobs, Linda; Kraan, Gerald

doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.03.027

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another long-term follow-up study, focusing on osteoarthritis (OA) of the DIP joint after MF fracture, showed that the rate of radiological OA development after MF fracture was almost equal to the natural degenerative process in the DIP joint in the absence of prior MF fracture and was accompanied by a decrease in range of motion of the DIP joint, which did not clinically affect patient-related outcome measures. 23 Therefore, conservative treatment of MF was advocated. The current study showed that only 2% of patients eventually had to undergo surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence and management of mallet finger in Dutch primary care: a cohort study

Krastman,

de Schepper,

Bindels

et al. 2023

BJGP Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA mallet finger (MF) is diagnosed clinically and can be managed in primary care. The actual incidence and management of MFs in primary care is unknown.AimsTo determine the incidence of MFs in primary care and to obtain estimates for the proportions of osseous and tendon MFs. Additionally, to gain insight in the management of patient diagnosed with a MF in primary care.Design and settingA cohort study using a healthcare registration database from general practice.MethodPatients aged ≥18 years with a new diagnosis of a MF from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2019 were selected using a search algorithm based on International Classification of Primary Health Care coding.ResultsIn total, 161 MF cases were identified. The mean incidence was 0.58 per 1,000 persons–years. In 58% (n=93) of the cases, a radiograph was taken; 23% (n=37) of MF cases had an osseous MF. The most applied strategies were referral to secondary care (45%) or conservative treatment in GP practice (43%). 11% was referred to a paramedical professional.ConclusionOn average, a GP assesses ±1 patient with a MF per year. Since only a minimal number of patients required surgical treatment and a limited number of GPs requested radiography, the recommendation in the guidelines to perform radiography in all patients with MF should potentially be reconsidered. The purpose of requesting radiographs should not be to distinguish between a tendinogenic or osseous MF, but to assess whether there is a possible indication for surgery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence and management of mallet finger in Dutch primary care: a cohort study

Krastman,

de Schepper,

Bindels

et al. 2023

BJGP Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some have been reluctant to treat these injuries nonoperatively, citing the risk of posttraumatic arthritis. Slichter et al reviewed 52 patients treated nonoperatively for an osseous mallet injury at mean follow-up of 12.1 years (range, 9.9 to 15.5 years) 29 . They compared radiographic changes and range of motion with the contralateral, control, distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint and evaluated patient-reported pain and function.…”

Section: Hand Arthritismentioning

confidence: 99%