Surgical treatment of the bony mallet thumb: a case series and literature review

Introduction The aim of this study was to provide a more precise statement on the outcome after surgical treatment of a bony mallet thumb and possibly give a treatment recommendation regarding the surgical fixation method. Patients and methods All patients (n = 16) who underwent a surgical treatment for an acute bony mallet thumb fracture between January 2006 and July 2019 were enrolled. The surgical method, complications, the range of motion, tip pinch, lateral key pinch, overall grip strength, visual analog score, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score, Mayo Wrist Score, Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation Score, Buck-Gramcko Score and radiologic parameters were evaluated. Further, a comprehensive literature search on PubMed was conducted covering a period from 1956 to 2021 to include all possible matching articles on the treatment of the bony mallet thumb (n = 21 articles). Results Surgical treatment was very inhomogenous including indirect and direct K-wire fixation, screw fixation, plate fixation and anchor fixation methods. The IP joint range of motion and thumb strength ranged from 66 to 94% in comparison to the contralateral side. An open reduction led to worse functional scores compared to a closed reduction. Treatment methods in the literature were also very inhomogenous with a very low patient count, often even pooling data of bony mallet thumb fractures with bony mallet finger fractures. The risk for infection was higher in K-wire fixation methods than in open reduction and internal fixation methods. Conclusion The evidence for the best treatment of a bony mallet thumb fracture is low. On one hand the functional outcome can be inferior using an open reduction approach, but on the other hand, K-wire fixation methods with a closed reduction approach showed a higher risk for infection. Future multi-center research must be conducted to find the best treatment procedure for the best outcome of the patient.

An Assessment of 3.5mm Reconstruction Plate Fixation in Olecranon Fractures

Background: Olecranon process is a large, curved eminence comprising of the proximal and posterior part of the ulna. It lies subcutaneously which makes it more vulnerable to injury. Due to intra-articular extension of fractures, anatomical reduction and early mobilization should be achieved in every case and usually managed surgically. Aims and Objectives: To access the results of reconstruction plate in fracture olecranon.Materials &Methods: This was a prospective study consisted of 25 cases of olecranon fractures which were managed by open reduction and internal fixation using 3.5mm reconstruction plate. Patients were followed up every month till 6 months. At each follow up visit clinical and radiological parameters were assessed: Final assessment was done at 6 months using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score.Result: According to the AO classification, Type A-1 – 7 cases, A-3 – 1case, B-1 – 13 cases, B-3 – 1 case, C-1 – 1 case, C-2 – 1 case, C-3 – 1 case. An adequate reduction was maintained in all fractured olecranon until union. Average radiological union time was 12 weeks in 72% cases, 15 weeks in 16% cases, 18 weeks in 8% cases and > 18 weeks in 4% cases. The results were graded as per the criteria laid by Rogers et al as excellent in 84% cases, good in 12% and unsatisfactory in 4% cases. 2 cases developed superficial infection and 1 deep infection and 1 delayed union.Conclusion: Open reduction and internal fixation of fracture of olecranon with 3.5mm reconstruction plate is based on sound biomechanical principle with a good functional outcome and a low incidence of complications.

Does Surgical Repair Benefit Pipkin Type I Femoral Head Fractures?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Femoral head fractures are rare injuries with or without traumatic dislocations. The management of these fractures is crucial to prevent the development of severe complications and to achieve optimal functional outcomes. Wide treatment options for Pipkin 1 femoral head fractures range from fragment excision, fixation following open reduction with internal fixation, or conservative treatment such as close reduction alone after fracture dislocation. However, the best decision making remains controversial not only due to lack of large trials, but also inconsistent results reported. Therefore, we aim to compare the operative with nonoperative outcomes of Pipkin type 1 patients. Patients and Methods: We systemically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations to identify studies assessing outcomes of Pipkin type 1 patients after conservative treatment, and open reduction with excision or fixation. Data on comparison of clinical outcomes of each management were extracted including arthritis, heterotopic ossification (HO), avascular necrosis (AVN), and functional scores (Thompson Epstein, Merle’ d Augine and Postel Score). We performed a meta-analysis with the available data. Results: Eight studies (7 case series and 1 RCT) were included in this study. In a pooled analysis, the overall rate of arthritis was 37% (95% CI, 2–79%), HO was 20% (95% CI, 2–45%), and AVN was 3% (95% CI, 0–16%). In comparison of management types, the excision group reached the best functional outcomes including Thompson Epstein Score (poor to worse, 9%; 95% CI, 0–27%) and Merle d’ Aubigne and Postel Score (poor to worse, 18%; 95% CI, 3–38%); ORIF group had the highest AVN rate (11%; 95% CI, 0–92%); conservative treatment had the highest arthritis rate (67%; 95% CI: 0–100%) and lowest HO rate (2%; 95% CI, 0–28%). Discussion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that different procedures lead to various clinical outcomes: fragment excision may achieve better function, conservative treatment may result in a higher arthritis rate, while ORIFs may have a higher AVN rate. These findings may assist surgeons in tailoring their decision-making to specific patient profiles. Future RCTs with multicenter efforts are needed to validate associations found in this study. Level of Evidence: II, systematic review and meta-analysis.