Trial reportArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Pin orthosis extension block pinning versus conservative treatment for doyle type 4B mallet fractures.
Trial report in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough numerous treatment options have been reported for mallet fractures, a universally accepted gold-standard approach has not yet been established. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the pin-orthosis extension-block pinning technique (PO-EBPT) with those of conventional conservative treatment in patients with Doyle type 4B mallet fractures. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study included 62 patients with Doyle type 4B mallet fractures involving 20-50% of the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint articular surface, treated between March 2022 and April 2024. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group 1 (n = 33) underwent PO-EBPT, whereas Group 2 (n = 29) received conservative treatment with splint immobilization. Outcome measures included DIP joint extension lag, range of motion, fracture union, complication rates and functional outcomes according to the Crawford criteria. Follow-up evaluations were performed at 2, 4 and 6 weeks and at 3, 6 and 12 months.
resultsA total of 62 patients were analyzed (33 PO-EBPT; 29 conservative). No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to sex, affected side, injured finger, or complication rates (p = 0.461, p = 0.658, p = 0.763 and p = 0.165, respectively). However, the PO-EBPT group demonstrated significantly improved DIP joint extension lag (4.5 ± 7.8° vs. 12.2 ± 10.4°, p = 0.002) and flexion range (88.5 ± 4.4° vs. 86.0 ± 5.7°, p = 0.039). According to the Crawford criteria, functional outcomes were also significantly superior in the PO-EBPT group (p = 0.02).
conclusionPO-EBPT yielded superior functional outcomes compared with conservative treatment in patients with Doyle type 4B mallet fractures, as demonstrated by reduced extension lag, improved DIP joint flexion and higher rates of excellent Crawford scores.
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.