Avulsions of the volar plate of the finger proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) following sprains are often undiagnosed in the acute setting. Therefore, the chronic outcomes of this injury are most frequently the object of study and treatment. Different techniques for volar plate chronic avulsion repair are described in the literature. The most used among these are mainly two: the direct suturing with or without the use of bone anchors and the tenodesis techniques with flexor digitalis superficialis (FDS). The aim of this systematic review is to determine outcomes and complications associated with these surgical treatments of post-traumatic volar plate avulsions without phalangeal fractures. An electronic literature research was carried out and pertinent articles were selected. Surgical techniques details, outcomes and complications for direct sutures and tenodesis technique are discussed. Outcomes (Range of motion and pain) seem to be comparable, whereas authors that use the direct suture technique describe more frequently PIPJ flexion contracture complication. From this review of the literature, authors believe that both techniques are available for the repair of chronic injuries of the volar plate of the PIPJ, although direct suturing can be considered as less reproducible.

Background: Injuries to digital nerves are common with trauma to the hand, often requiring surgery. Surgical management of these injuries can be performed using several techniques: direct repair (neurorrhaphy), autograft, allograft, and conduit repair. In light of increasing the availability and use of various digital nerve repair techniques, a new systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to comparatively review the available evidence to determine any differences in outcomes to better guide treatment in cases with digital nerve gaps. Methods: Current literature on sensory outcomes of various digital nerve repair techniques was reviewed using static 2-point discrimination (S2PD), moving 2-point discrimination (M2PD), Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing (SWMF), and complication rates as outcomes of interest. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 15 articles were reviewed and 625 nerve repairs were analyzed. Results: The average gap length for allograft repair, autograft repair, and conduit repair was 15.4, 24.7, and 13.4 mm, respectively. For S2PD outcomes, autograft repair was statistically superior to all other forms of repair. Allograft trended higher than neurorrhaphy and conduit repair, but results were not statistically significant. For SWMF outcomes, autograft repair was statistically superior to conduit repair and neurorrhaphy; it was statistically comparable with allograft repair. Allograft performed statistically superior to conduit repair relative to M2PD. Conclusions: Based on the current updated meta-analysis using newer data and techniques, we found that all available techniques have reasonable outcomes. Yet when managing a digital nerve injury with a gap, thereby excluding direct neurorrhaphy, both autograft and allograft performed comparably and were superior to conduit repair.