BACKGROUND: While suture anchors are widely used in medical procedures for their advantages, they can sometimes lead to complications, including anchor prolapse. This article presents a unique case of suture anchor prolapse at the base of the distal phalanx of the little finger after extensor tendon rupture reconstruction surgery.
METHODS: A 35-year-old male, underwent extensor tendon rupture reconstruction using a non-absorbable suture anchor. After seven years the patient visited our outpatients complaining of stiffness, pain, and protrusion at the surgical site. Initial X-ray imaging suggested suggesting either a fracture of the distal phalanx or tendon adhesion but lacked a definitive diagnosis. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed bone connectivity between the middle and distal phalanges with irregular signal shadow and unclear boundaries while maintaining a regular finger shape. MRI proved superior in diagnosing prolapsed suture anchors, marking the first reported case of its kind. Surgical intervention confirmed MRI findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Suture anchor complications, such as prolapse, are a concern in medical practice. This case underscores the significance of MRI for accurate diagnosis and the importance of tailored surgical management in addressing this uncommon complication.

UNASSIGNED: Swan neck deformity develops as a sequela of chronic mallet finger. Surgical management can include soft tissue reconstruction or distal interphalangeal joint (DIPJ) fusion. Studies examining the incidence and management of posttraumatic swan neck deformity following mallet fracture are limited.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective, single-institution review of patients undergoing surgical management of swan neck deformity following a traumatic mallet finger from 2000 to 2021 was performed. Patients with preexisting rheumatoid arthritis were excluded. Injury, preoperative clinical, and surgical characteristics were recorded along with postoperative outcomes and complications.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty-five patients were identified who had surgical intervention for swan neck deformity. Sixty-four percent of mallet fingers were chronic. Median time to development of mallet finger was 2 months. Twelve (48%) mallet fingers were Doyle class I, 6 (24%) were class III, and 7 (28%) were class IVB. Forty percent of injuries failed nonoperative splinting trials. Sixteen (64%) underwent primary DIPJ arthrodesis, 8 (32%) underwent DIPJ pinning, and 1 underwent open reduction and internal fixation of mallet fracture. The complication rate was 50% overall, and 33% of surgeries experienced major complications. The overall reoperation rate was 33%. Proximal interphalangeal joint hyperextension improved by 11° on average. Median follow-up was 61.2 months.
UNASSIGNED: The development of symptomatic swan neck deformity following traumatic mallet finger injury is rare. All patients warrant an attempt at nonsurgical management. Attempts at surgical correction had a high rate of complications, and DIPJ fusion appeared to provide the most reliable solution.

Mallet finger is a commonly encountered condition in daily practice. However, there is currently no consensus on whether surgical intervention or conservative treatment with orthosis splint is superior. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compare the treatment outcomes between surgery and orthosis for bony and tendinous mallet finger. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library according to the PRISMA guidelines from inception to January 15, 2021. The primary outcome was distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint extension lag angle, and secondary outcomes were DIP joint flexion and range of motion (ROM) angle. A total of 297 studies were initially identified, of which 13 (ten retrospective non-randomized controlled studies (non-RCTs) and three RCTs) were included in the final analysis. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that there was no high level of evidence supporting the superiority of surgery over orthosis in the treatment of mallet finger. Based on the available evidence, surgical intervention and conservative treatment with splint may offer similar clinical outcomes in both bony and tendinous mallet finger.

Acute disruptions of the terminal extensor tendon are common and can result in significant dysfunction if not recognized and treated appropriately. This article provides a topical review of the contemporary literature concerning acute mallet finger injuries. It also proposes a modification to the Doyle classification to make it more encompassing and less prone to interobserver error.

The current literature describes multiple surgical and nonsurgical techniques for the management of mallet finger injuries, and there is no consensus on the indications for surgical treatment. The objective of this study was to determine, through a literature review, if any conclusions can be drawn concerning the indications for surgery in mallet finger injuries; the treatment outcomes of surgical versus nonsurgical management; the most effective methods of surgical and nonsurgical treatment; and the most common treatment complications of mallet finger injuries.
A systematic review of multiple databases was performed. English language clinical studies evaluating therapeutic interventions for mallet fingers that reported objective, standardized outcome measures were included. Basic science studies, cadaveric studies, conference abstracts, level V evidence studies, studies lacking statistical data, and tendinous injuries other than mallet fingers were excluded. Salvage procedures and studies evaluating exclusively chronic lesions were also excluded.
Forty-four studies that reported clinical outcomes for the treatment of mallet finger injuries, 22 evaluating surgical treatments and 17 studies investigating nonsurgical treatments were included. The average distal interphalangeal joint extensor lag was 5.7° after surgical treatment and 7.6° after nonsurgical treatment. Complication rates of surgical and nonsurgical interventions were comparable (14.5% and 12.8%, respectively). Five studies directly compared the outcomes of surgical with nonsurgical management, with mixed results and recommendations.
Both surgical and nonsurgical treatments of mallet finger injuries lead to excellent clinical outcomes. Insufficient evidence is available to determine when surgical intervention is indicated. Based on our literature review, it appears that these treatments are equivalent and should be individualized to the patient.
Therapeutic IV.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this review are to discuss the diagnosis and management of mallet and jersey finger injuries in athletes and to highlight how treatment impacts return to play.
RESULTS: Mallet finger: although numerous non-operative and operative techniques have been described, there continues to be little consensus regarding the optimal procedure. Jersey finger: ultrasound appears to be a cost-effective imaging modality that may be useful for preoperative planning. Wide-awake surgery offers optimal intraoperative assessment of the tendon repair. Tendon repair with volar plate augmentation has been shown to improve the strength of the repair in the laboratory, and early clinical results are encouraging. Most mallet finger injuries will heal with non-operative treatment over a period of 8-12 weeks, even when treatment is delayed up to 3-4 months. An acute diagnosis of jersey finger requires surgical treatment and generally means 8-12 weeks of inability to compete in most contact sports.

METHODS: Systematic review.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review outcome measures used for the assessment of the conservative management of mallet finger to determine if they characterize the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health components of activity, participation, environmental factors, or quality of life.
RESULTS: Five studies published within the last 10 years were included in the systematic review. A majority, 19 of the outcomes used by the authors, fell within the body functions and structures category. Six were related to activity, and 1 was related to participation. One was linked to environmental factors. Five were found to be not definable and related to quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that many outcome measures focus on body structures and functions in the current research on the conservative treatment of mallet finger injuries.
METHODS: 2a.

In adults, mallet finger is a traumatic zone I lesion of the extensor tendon with either tendon rupture or bony avulsion at the base of the distal phalanx. High-energy mechanisms of injury generally occur in young men, whereas lower energy mechanisms are observed in elderly women. The mechanism of injury is an axial load applied to a straight digit tip, which is then followed by passive extreme distal interphalangeal joint (DIPJ) hyperextension or hyperflexion. Mallet finger is diagnosed clinically, but an X-ray should always be performed. Tubiana\'s classification takes into account the size of the bony articular fragment and DIPJ subluxation. We propose to stage subluxated fractures as stage III if the subluxation is reducible with a splint and as stage IV if not. Left untreated, mallet finger becomes chronic and leads to a swan-neck deformity and DIPJ osteoarthritis. The goal of treatment is to restore active DIPJ extension. The results of a six- to eight-week conservative course of treatment with a DIPJ splint in slight hyperextension for tendon lesions or straight for bony avulsions depends on patient compliance. Surgical treatments vary in terms of the approach, the reduction technique, and the means of fixation. The risks involved are stiffness, septic arthritis, and osteoarthritis. Given the lack of consensus regarding indications for treatment, we propose to treat all cases of mallet finger with a dorsal glued splint except for stage IV mallet finger, which we treat with extra-articular pinning.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a superior orthosis and wearing regimen for the conservative treatment of mallet finger injuries. The secondary purpose is to examine the current evidence to evaluate if a night orthosis is necessary following the initial immobilization phase.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the search terms mallet finger, splint, orthosis, and conservative treatment.
RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the systematic review. In all 4 RCTs mallet fingers were immobilized continuously for 6 weeks in acute injuries and 8 weeks for chronic injuries.
CONCLUSIONS: Two of the three studies found a large effect size for orthotic intervention ranging from 2.17 to 12.12. Increased edema and age and decreased patient adherence seem to negatively influence DIP extension gains. Recommended immobilization duration is between 6 to 8 weeks and with additional weeks of immobilization in cases of persistent lags.
METHODS: 1a.