Analysis of the efficacy of anchor technique in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger deformity in patients with diabetes and non-diabetes

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2022.01.006

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To analyze the efficacy of anchor technique in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger deformity in diabetic and non-diabetic patients and evaluate the clinical feasibility of anchor technique in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger deformity in diabetic patients.

Methods

Prospectively collecting 30 diabetic (treatment group) and 30 non-diabetic (control group) patients with tendinous mallet finger deformity who were treated with anchor technique in the Second Hospital of Shijiazhuang and the Second Hospital of Tangshan. After operation, the wound healing time, the affected finger function of flexion and extension at 2, 3 and 4 months, the tendon healing, the complications were compared in 2 groups.

Results

Among the 30 cases in the treatment group, 3 cases were lost follow-up, while 4 cases lost follow-up in the control group. The average wound healing time was (14.0±1.0) days in the treatment group while (13.0±1.1) days in the control group, there was no significant difference between the two groups (t=0.087, P>0.05). At the last follow-up, the range of flexion and extension of MP, PIP and DIP were (89.7±2.4)°, (84.2±5.4)° and (76.3±5.2)° respectively while the control group were (89.0±3.2)°, (84.0±5.3)°, (75.3±5.2)° respectively, there was no significant difference between the two groups [(t=1.325, P>0.05), (t=1.079, P>0.05), (t=1.553, P>0.05)]. According to the TAM classification of hand motor function, 23 cases were excellent, 3 cases were good and 1 case was fair in the treatment group, while 22 cases, 2 cases and 2 cases in the control group, there was no significant difference between the two groups (χ²=0.343, P>0.05). Tendon ultrasound showed that the tendon and the bone healed well in both groups. There were no obvious postoperative complications in the two groups and they could engage in normal work and life.

Conclusions

Anchor technique can effectively prevent the adhesion of extensor tendon, obtain good flexion and extension function of the affected finger and reduce postoperative complications. It can also be used for the treatment of tendinous mallet finger deformity in patients with diabetes.

Key words: Anchor technique, Diabetic, Tendinous mallet finger deformity, Extensor tendon, Attachment

Tong Zhou, Yuntao Shang, Yingying Ma, Yanci Zhang, Junyong Li. Analysis of the efficacy of anchor technique in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger deformity in patients with diabetes and non-diabetes[J]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2022, 08(01): 29-34.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhlngkykfdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2022.01.006

https://zhlngkykfdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2022/V08/I01/29

Figures/Tables 4

References 21

1	Liu H, Li R, Yuan C, et al. Treatment of tendinous mallet finger deformity with a part of the flexor digitorum profundus tendon [J]. ANZ J Surg, 2020, 90(11): 2325-2328.
2	Ramponi DR, Hellier SD. Mallet finger [J]. Adv Emerg Nurs J, 2019, 41(3): 198-203.
3	Ayhan E, Kuzucu Y, Aslaner EE, et al. Evaluating stack splint use for mallet finger [J]. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol, 2021, 26(1): 47-51.
4	Nashi N, Sebastin SJ. A pragmatic and Evidence-Based approach to mallet finger [J]. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol, 2021, 26(3): 319-332.
5	Saito K, Kihara H. A trial of the effect of 2-Step orthosis treatment for mallet finger fractures [J]. J Sport Rehabil, 2020, 1: 1-5.
6	Özkan S, Berköz Ö. Comparison of four different immobilization methods in the treatment of tendinous mallet finger injury [J]. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg, 2021, 27(3): 356-361.
7	Suzuki T, Iwamoto T, Matsumura N, et al. Causes of procedural failures of closed reductions using an Extension-Block pin for bony mallet finger [J]. J Hand Microsurg, 2021, 13(2): 69-74.
8	Ozturk T, Erpala F, Zengin EC, et al. Comparison of interfragmentary pinning versus the extension block technique for acute Doyle type 4c mallet finger [J]. Hand Surg Rehabil, 2021 (21): S2468-1229(21)00106.
9	Huang Y, Wu K, Shi H, et al. Kirscner wire fixation versus suture anchor technique for mallet finger: A meta-analysis [J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2021, 100(11): e24996.
10	Eller-Vainicher C, Cairoli E, Grassi G, et al. Pathophysiology and management of type 2 diabetes mellitus bone fragility [J]. J Diabetes Res, 2020: 7608964.
11	Biba U, Teng RW, Kurian MJ, et al. Diabetes News [J]. J Diabetes, 2019, 11(12): 925-927.
12	Simó-Servat O, Hernández C, Simó R. Diabetic retinopathy in the context of patients with diabetes [J]. Ophthalmic Res, 2019, 62(4): 211-217.
13	Cole JB, Florez JC. Genetics of diabetes mellitus and diabetes complications [J]. Nat Rev Nephrol, 2020, 16(7): 377-390.
14	潘生德,顾玉东,侍德.中华医学会手外科学会上肢部分功能评定试用标准[J].中华手外科杂志, 2000, 16(3): 130.
15	Lin JS, Samora JB. Surgical and nonsurgical management of mallet finger: a systematic review [J]. J Hand Surg Am, 2018, 43(2): 146-163.e2.
16	Sawada S, Tsuchiya S, Kodama S, et al. Vascular resistance of carotid and vertebral arteries is associated with retinal microcirculation measured by laser speckle flowgraphy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus [J]. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2020, 165: 108240.
17	Sultana N, Islam MR. Doppler evaluation of carotid vessels in type 2 diabetes [J]. Mymensingh Med J, 2020, 29(3): 572-578.
18	Han K, Yao J, Yin X, et al. Review on the prevalence of diabetes and risk factors and situation of disease management in floating population in China [J]. Glob Health Res Policy, 2017, 2: 33.
19	尚运涛,周彤,梁京,等.不同手术方式治疗糖尿病患者手指屈肌腱止点断裂的临床研究[J].中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2020, 6(6): 340-345.
20	Çapkın S, Buyuk AF, Sürücü S, et al. Extension-block pinning to treat bony mallet finger: Is a transfixation pin necessary? [J]. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg, 2019, 25(3): 281-286.
21	Cressey BD, Clark A, Jellinek NJ. Mallet finger as a complication of dermatologic surgery:diagnosis,treatment,and prevention [J]. Dermatol Surg, 2019, 45(7): 997-999.

组别	例数	性别（例，男/女）	年龄（岁， ±s）	伤口长度（cm， ±s）	受伤时间（h， ±s）	肌腱质量（例，拔丝/切割）
试验组	30/27	15/12	44.54±4.55	3.46±0.33	4.23±0.84	11/16
对照组	30/26	13/13	43.63±4.37	3.39±0.31	4.11±0.92	9/17
统计值	-	χ²=1.763	t=0.049	t=0.177	t=0.542	χ²=0.068
P值	-	0.185	0.964	0.843	0.745	0.785

组别	例数	性别（例，男/女）	年龄（岁， ±s）	伤口长度（cm， ±s）	受伤时间（h， ±s）	肌腱质量（例，拔丝/切割）
试验组	30/27	15/12	44.54±4.55	3.46±0.33	4.23±0.84	11/16
对照组	30/26	13/13	43.63±4.37	3.39±0.31	4.11±0.92	9/17
统计值	-	χ²=1.763	t=0.049	t=0.177	t=0.542	χ²=0.068
P值	-	0.185	0.964	0.843	0.745	0.785

组别	例数	手术时间（min， ±s）	出血量（ml， ±s）	拆线时间（d，±s）	伤口感染（例，是/否）	肌腱粘连（例，是/否）	皮肤感觉障碍（例，是/否）	内固定物断裂或松动（例，是/否）
试验组	27	90±4	10.8±0.4	14.0±1.0	0/27	2/25	0/27	0/27
对照组	26	90±5	11.0±0.5	13.0±1.1	0/26	3/23	0/26	0/26
统计值	-	t=0.056	t=0.049	t=0.087	-	χ²=0.047	-	-
P值	-	0.188	0.154	0.079	-	0.897	-	-

组别	例数	手术时间（min， ±s）	出血量（ml， ±s）	拆线时间（d，±s）	伤口感染（例，是/否）	肌腱粘连（例，是/否）	皮肤感觉障碍（例，是/否）	内固定物断裂或松动（例，是/否）
试验组	27	90±4	10.8±0.4	14.0±1.0	0/27	2/25	0/27	0/27
对照组	26	90±5	11.0±0.5	13.0±1.1	0/26	3/23	0/26	0/26
统计值	-	t=0.056	t=0.049	t=0.087	-	χ²=0.047	-	-
P值	-	0.188	0.154	0.079	-	0.897	-	-

组别	例数	TAM值（°， ±s）	根据TAM值分级（例）			屈伸活动度（DIP， ±s）	屈伸活动度（PIP， ±s）	屈伸活动度（MP， ±s）
组别	例数	TAM值（°， ±s）	优	良	可	屈伸活动度（DIP， ±s）	屈伸活动度（PIP， ±s）	屈伸活动度（MP， ±s）
试验组	27	253±7	23	3	1	76.3±5.2	84.2±5.4	89.7±2.4
对照组	26	253±7	22	2	2	75.3±5.2	84.0±5.3	89.0±3.2
统计值		t=1.036	χ²=0.343			t=1.553	t=1.079	t=1.325
P值		0.232	0.634			0.243	0.277	0.138

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export