Han Hyun Ho, Cho Hyun Jun, Kim Seong Yeon, Oh Deuk Young
Department of Plastic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Ulsan University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Arch Plast Surg. 2018 Jul;45(4):351-356. doi: 10.5999/aps.2017.01431. Epub 2018 Jul 15.
Mallet fracture can easily occur during sports activities or in daily life; however, the principles and methods of treatment for such fractures remain debated. Among the surgical treatments, various methods of closed reduction have been proposed. We treated patients with the extension block method (EBM) and the direct pinning method (DPM), and then compared the results. We assessed differences in range of motion and measurements of finger movement after surgery.
A total of 41 patients who underwent surgery from August 2013 to September 2015 were evaluated retrospectively. Among them, 21 patients were treated with the EBM and 20 patients were treated with the DPM. We then compared extensor lag, range of motion, and outcomes according to Crawford's criteria between before surgery and at 6 to 8 months postoperatively.
The postoperative extensor lag improvement was 4.28° and 10.73°, and the postoperative arc of motion was 55.76° and 61.17° in the EBM and DPM groups, respectively. The Crawford assessment showed no statistically significant difference between the groups, although the score in the DPM group was higher than that in the EBM group (3.5 vs. 3.1).
As closed reduction methods for the treatment of mallet fracture, both the EBM and DPM showed good results. However, the DPM proved to be superior to the EBM in that it produced greater improvements in extensor lag and range of motion.
锤状指骨折在体育活动或日常生活中极易发生;然而,此类骨折的治疗原则和方法仍存在争议。在手术治疗中,已提出了各种闭合复位方法。我们采用延长阻滞法(EBM)和直接穿针法(DPM)治疗患者,然后比较结果。我们评估了术后活动范围和手指运动测量的差异。
回顾性评估了2013年8月至2015年9月期间接受手术的41例患者。其中,21例患者采用EBM治疗,20例患者采用DPM治疗。然后,我们比较了术前与术后6至8个月时的伸肌滞后、活动范围以及根据克劳福德标准得出的结果。
EBM组和DPM组术后伸肌滞后改善分别为4.28°和10.73°,术后活动弧分别为55.76°和61.17°。克劳福德评估显示,两组之间无统计学显著差异,尽管DPM组的评分高于EBM组(3.5对3.1)。
作为治疗锤状指骨折的闭合复位方法,EBM和DPM均显示出良好效果。然而,DPM在伸肌滞后和活动范围方面有更大改善,被证明优于EBM。