ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2026
Conservative treatment versus percutaneous intramedullary pinning for acute tendinous mallet finger: Does pin configuration matter?
Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute tendinous mallet finger (Doyle type I) is commonly treated with continuous immobilization of the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint; however, treatment success largely depends on patient compliance. Percutaneous intramedullary (IM) Kirschner wire DIP joint transfixation represents a minimally invasive surgical alternative, although the clinical relevance of different pin configurations remains unclear. This study compared conservative and surgical treatment methods and evaluated the impact of different pin configurations on clinical outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 93 adult patients with acute tendinous mallet finger who presented within 7 days of injury and were followed for at least 12 months. Patients were allocated into three groups: conservative treatment with a tape-reinforced Stack splint (n=33), percutaneous IM Kirschner wire DIP joint transfixation with the pin left exposed (n=30), and IM transfixation with the pin buried within the fingertip pulp (n=30). The primary outcome was residual DIP joint extension lag at final follow-up. Secondary outcomes included functional results according to the Crawford criteria and treatment-related complications.
resultsBaseline DIP extension lag did not differ significantly among the groups (p=0.801). At final follow-up, residual extension lag was significantly greater in the conservative group (median 4°) compared with the surgical groups (0.5° and 1°, respectively; p<0.001). Multicategorical analysis of Crawford grades showed no significant intergroup difference (p=0.095); however, dichotomous analysis (excellent + good outcomes) demonstrated significantly higher success rates in the surgically treated groups compared with the con-servative group (p=0.014). Skin maceration was more frequent in the conservative group (p<0.001), whereas pin-site irritation was significantly more common in the exposed pin group (p=0.006). No significant differences were observed among the groups regarding superficial infection.
conclusionIn patients with acute tendinous mallet finger, percutaneous IM Kirschner wire DIP joint transfixation provides superior extension control and higher functional success rates compared with conservative treatment. Although pin configuration does not significantly influence functional outcomes, it affects patient comfort and the complication profile. Treatment decisions should therefore be individualized based on patient compliance and functional expectations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.