Kirscner wire fixation versus suture anchor technique for mallet finger: A meta-analysis.

PURPOSE

Though the previous studies had described various surgical techniques for the treatment of mallet finger injuries, consensus on which technique was the most effective and appropriate surgical methods had not yet reached. This review aimed to systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of the treatment for mallet finger injuries via Kirschner wire fixation versus suture anchor technique to recommend an optimum option.

METHODS

All literatures published until December 31, 2019 compared Kirschner wire fixation versus suture anchor technique to treat mallet finger were acquired through a comprehensive search in multiple databases. A meta-analysis was performed by the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 8 trials with 362 cases consisted of 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 prospective studies. The results suggested that the groups treated with kirschner wire fixation experienced more significant advantage in less complications than suture anchor groups (P  < .05). On the other hand, no significant differences were found in terms of the total active range motion of the distal interphalangeal joint, the average distal interphalangeal joint extensor lag, Visual Analogue Scale scores, recurrence, as well as functional assessment at the final follow-up (P > .05, respectively) between the two surgical procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

No obvious superiority were shown for the effectiveness between the two surgical interventions based on the above results. But in view of the less economic spending and complications, Kirschner wire fixation should be a better alternative relative to the suture anchor technique for inevitable surgical treatment of mallet finger lesions. However, a prudent attitude is still necessary to choose the two operative managements before a large sample and high-quality randomized controlled trials had been performed.