Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
134
Copyright © 2016 The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
www.e-aps.org
Review Article
IN TRODUCTION
Definition
Mallet finger in adults is a traumatic lesion of the terminal exten-
sor band in zone 1, and is characterized by intact skin and divi-
sion of the tendon insertion alone (tendinous mallet) or an avul-
sion of less than one third of the articular surface of the distal
phalanx (bony mallet) [1-3]. The expression “mallet finger” is
inaccurate because the deformity is reducible in its acute phase
[4]. Some prefer the expression “drop finger,” which provides a
better description of the consequences of the lesion [5], or the
expression “baseball finger,” which describes the mechanism of
injury [6,7]. A mallet finger lesion can be considered a mirror
lesion to an avulsion of the distal flexor profundus, also known
Review of Acute Traumatic Closed Mallet Finger
Injuries in Adults
Santiago Salazar Botero
1
, Juan Jose Hidalgo Diaz
1
, Anissa Benaïda
2
, Sylvie Collon
3
,
Sybille Facca
1
, Philippe André Liverneaux
1
1
Department of Hand Surgery, SOS main, CCOM, University Hospital of Strasbourg, FMTS, University of Strasbourg, Illkirch, France;
2
Department of Orthopaedics, CHU Blida, Saad Dahleb University, Blida, Algeria;
3
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Caen University
Hospital, Caen, France
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 osteo arthritis.
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.
Keywords Mallet finger / Mallet fracture / Bony mallet
Correspondence: Philippe André
Liverneaux
Department of Hand Surgery,
University Hospital of Strasbourg,
10 avenue Baumann, 67403 Illkirch,
France
Tel: +33-6-8889-4779
Fax: +33-3-8855-2363
E-mail: Philippe.liverneaux@chru-
strasbourg.fr
Philippe Liverneaux has conflict of
interest with Newclip Technics and
Argomedical. None of the other authors
has conflit of interest.
Received: 9 Jan 2016
•
Revised: 23 Feb 2016
•
Accepted: 24 Feb 2016
pISSN: 2234-6163
•
eISSN: 2234-6171
•
http://dx.doi.org/10.5999/aps.2016.43.2.134
•
Arch Plast Surg 2016;43:134-144
Vol. 43 / No. 2 / March 2016
135
as a “jersey finger” or a “rugby finger.” Some authors extend the
definition of mallet finger to other zone 1 divisions of the exten-
sor, including skin wounds (open mallet) [8] and/or fractures
of the distal phalanx involving more than one third of the articu-
lar surface [9,10] or displaced fractures of the distal phalanx
growth plate (Seymour lesions) [11]. In this article, we only
consider acute closed lesions in adults.
Historical background
Segond described the first bony mallet finger in 1880 and Shoe-
ning the first tendinous mallet finger in 1887 [12]. The initial
treatment of mallet finger was surgical and was reported by Ma-
son in 1930 [13,14] and then by Pratt in 1957 [7]. The conser-
vative treatment was described by Smilie in 1936 [12], and re-
flected advancements in physiopathology and to the use of plas-
ter of Paris splints to immobilize the distal interphalangeal joint
(DIPJ) in extension and the proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ)
in flexion. In 1962, Stack splints, which leave the PIPJ free, en-
tered into use. They are still very frequently used despite the ef-
forts of researchers to propose improved splints. Abouna’s splint,
described in 1968, is an example of this dynamic. It was rapidly
abandoned due to the rusting of its metal wires [4] and of wear
of the elastic tensor bands [7]. Following the first clinical series
published in the 1960s, Crawford [15] described a method of
evaluating therapeutic results in four stages in 1984. Since 1984,
a number of surgical and conservative treatments have been de-
scribed.
Epidemiology
Mallet finger lesions are common, with a prevalence of 9.3% of
all tendon and ligament lesions in the body and an incidence of
5.6% of all tendinous lesions in the hand and wrist [16]. Global-
ly, no gender difference is present in the affected population, al-
though high-energy mechanisms of injury are more common in
young males and low-energy mechanisms of injury are common
in elderly females [17]. All authors concur that the index and
thumb fingers are the least frequently affected. However, some
researchers have described the middle finger as the most affect-
ed [18], whereas others have identified the ring finger to be the
most affected [19], and still others the little finger [20]. The
dominant hand is more often affected [18,20]. Tendinous mal-
let finger is more common than bony mallet finger [21]. Some
authors have proposed that a family predisposition may contrib-
ute to mallet finger [6].
Mechanism of injury
Although specific biomechanical studies have not elucidated
the mechanism of injury in mallet finger, several theories have
been proposed (Fig. 1). The process is divided into two steps by
all researchers. The first step is the application of an axial force
to the distal end of a straight finger. The second step varies among
authors. Some have argued that the axial force is followed by ex-
treme passive DIPJ hyperextension. This explains bony mallet
injuries [6,22]. Others have proposed that the axial force is fol-
lowed by extreme passive DIPJ hyperflexion, which explains
tendinous mallet fingers [23]. Other researchers have suggested
that the resistance of the oblique retinacular ligament fibers de-
termines tendon or bone avulsion [24]. None of these theories
have been proven. The amount of energy involved depends on
the patient’s age. In younger individuals, mallet finger is most of-
ten the result of a high-energy mechanism during sports, involv-
ing the impact of a ball onto the hand [6,7]. Multiple-digit inju-
ries have been described [25]. In elderly patients, the mechanism
of injury is more often a low energy sedentary activity. Examples
include injuries sustained while making a bed [19] or putting
socks on [7,26]. In children it is more often a direct shock with
a crushing mechanism in a door [23].
DI AGNOSIS
Positive diagnosis
The diagnosis of mallet finger is essentially clinical. The patient’s
recent history usually includes the likely mechanism of injury.
The patient typically presents in an emergency setting or seeks
care later, sometimes several weeks after the injury. The patient
usually complains of pain and of being unable to perform full
In all analyses, an axial force is applied to the tip of a straight digit
(black arrows), followed by extreme passive distal interphalangeal
joint (DIPJ) hyperextension (white upper arrow), which would ac-
count for bony lesions, or extreme passive DIPJ hyperflexion (lower
white arrow), which would account for tendinous lesions.
Fig. 1. Main theories explaining the mechanism of injury
Botero SS et al.
Mallet finger
136
active extension of the DIPJ. Upon examination, a passively re-
ducible mallet deformity, swelling, and/or ecchymosis of the
dorsal aspect of the DIPJ is found. Pressure is painful [26].
A systematic radiographic lateral and anteroposterior study of
the DIPJ looks for a bony articular fragment, an injury to the
growth plate, or a subluxed DIPJ [11]. Wehbe and Schneider
[10] described a method to measure the size and displacement
of the bony fragment (Fig. 2) [2]. Other authors have proposed
using ultrasound [27] or magnetic resonance imaging [28] for
additional studies, but there is no reason to do so, since clinical
examination and standard radiographs are sufficient to establish
a diagnosis.
No consensus exists regarding the measurement of passive ex-
tension deficit in the DIPJ. A clinical method and a radiological
method are used. Some researchers have reported using a goni-
ometer without indicating whether they measured the dorsum
or the lateral side of the DIPJ [29]. Others have measured lateral
X-ray findings, arguing that dorsal swelling overestimates the ex-
tension deficit measured clinically [13]. Given the lack of intrao-
bserver and interobserver comparative studies of clinical and ra-
diological measuring methods, we prefer to use the clinical me-
thod, which does not increase the number of films taken. We
measure the deficit with a goniometer placed on the dorsum of
the DIPJ because measurements on the lateral aspect are less
predictable.
Differential diagnosis
Although some authors have considered such injuries to fall into
the category of mallet finger, open wounds of the extensor tendon,
Seymour lesions, and fractures of more than one third of the dis-
tal phalanx joint surface cannot be considered mallet finger.
Swan-neck deformities are due to DIPJ injuries (zone 1 rup-
ture of the extensor tendon), PIPJ injuries (avulsion or disten-
sion of the volar plate), or metacarpophalangeal injuries (joint
dislocation or intrinsic muscle spasticity). Chronic mallet finger
(DIPJ injury) can lead to a swan-neck deformity. A swan-neck
deformity in rheumatoid arthritis (PIPJ and/or DIPJ lesion)
automatically causes a mallet deformity.
Other lesions involving a deficit of DIPJ passive extension should
be differentiated from mallet finger. For example, a Kirner defor-
Fig. 3. Wehbé and Schneider classification
Type I, no volar subluxation; type II, volar subluxation; type III, growth plate fracture; subtype A, fragment size
<
1/3 of the articular surface; sub-
type B, fragment size between 1/3 and 2/3 of the articular surface; sub-type C, fragment size
>
2/3 of the articular surface.
IA IIA IIIA
IB IIB IIIB
IC IIC IIIC
Ratio of the fractured articular surface over the total articular sur-
face of the distal phalanx base: T
=
B/A+B
=
size of fragment in %.
The ratio of the gap between the distal phalanx and the bony frag-
ment over the total articular surface of the distal phalanx base:
D
=
C/A+B
=
fragment displacement in %.
Fig. 2. Size and displacement calculation on lateral view
Vol. 43 / No. 2 / March 2016
137
mity is a congenital anomaly of the distal phalanx growth plate
that is diagnosed through X-ray imaging [30]. The sequelae of
distal phalanx growth plate fractures are further similar lesions
[23]. Osteoarthritis and chronic arthropathy arise in different
settings.
Classification
The three classifications of mallet finger are old and were pre-
sented by Wehbe in 1984, Tubiana in 1986, and Doyle in 1993.
They are all based on radiological assessments. None of these
classifications corresponds to a consensus regarding the treat-
ment algorithm, and all include growth plate fracture. The con-
cept of mallet finger developed in this article is not adequately
represented by any of these classifications, and we therefore pro-
pose a modification of Tubiana’s classification.
Wehbe and Schneider’s classification [10] describes nine dif-
ferent possible lesions (Fig. 3). It considers the anatomical le-
sion and the size of the fractured bone fragment, excluding ten-
dinous mallet deformities and open lesions. It does not correlate
bone fragment size with volar subluxation. Lesions are subcate-
gorized according to the presence of a bony fragment larger than
one third of the articular surface.
Tubiana’s classification [12] describes four types of lesions
(Fig. 4). It considers the size of the bony fragment and sublux-
ation. It includes tendinous mallet deformities and excludes open
lesions, and correlates bone fragment size with volar subluxation.
Lesions are subcategorized according to the presence of a bony
fragment larger than one third of the articular surface.
Doyle’s classification [8] describes six types of lesions (Fig. 5).
It considers the anatomical lesion and the size of the fractured
bone fragment, and includes tendinous mallet deformities and
open lesions. It does not correlate bone fragment size with volar
subluxation. The sizes of the bony fragment that determine the
subtype are 20% and 50% of the articular surface.
The bone fragment sizes of 1/3, 20%, or 50% of the articular
surface are arbitrary and do not correspond to any pathophysio-
logical data. Some authors have shown that dorsal fractures of
the distal phalanx base become unstable if more than 48% of the
joint surface is avulsed [31]. However, clinical experience shows
that subluxation can occur even in smaller avulsions. The per-
Type I, subcutaneous tendon rupture; type II, bony avulsion at the
base of the distal phalanx; type III, fracture
>
1/3 of the articular
surface with volar subluxation; type IV, growth plate fracture.
Fig. 4. Tubiana classification
I
II
III
IV
Type I, closed mallet finger; type II, open mallet finger; type III, open
mallet finger with loss of substance; type IV, bony mallet finger;
subtype A, involves the growth plate; subtype B, fragment size be-
tween 20% and 50% of the articular surface; subtype C, fragment
size greater than 50% of the articular surface.
Fig. 5. Doyle classification
I
II
III
IVA
IVB
IVC
Botero SS et al.
Mallet finger
138
centage of the joint surface involved is therefore not the only
factor involved in instability. Concomitant DIPJ volar plate le-
sions probably play a role in joint instability. Given the current
state of our knowledge, it is impossible to establish a classifica-
tion that accounts for all factors contributing to instability. We
propose modifying the Tubiana classification by basing it essen-
tially on DIPJ instability (subluxation) without taking the bone
fragment size into consideration (Fig. 6). We have divided the
Tubiana stage III into stage III if the subluxation is reduced by a
splint and stage IV if the subluxation is not reduced with a splint.
Natural history
Tendinous mallet finger injuries heal in several phases [32]. Dur-
ing the first 24 hours, an inflammatory response occurs, with
neutrophil white cells penetrating the site of injury, which are
then followed in the next 24 hours by monocytes and macro-
phage cells that phagocytates necrotic tissue. Vasoactive and
chemotactic factors increase vascular permeability and initiate
angiogenesis, tenocyte proliferation, and the synthesis of colla-
gen type III. During the remodeling phase, collagen synthesis
peaks during several weeks with high concentrations of glycos-
aminoglycan and a progressive decrease in cellular content. Dur-
ing this period, the scar tissue is remodeled in two successive
phases: consolidation followed by maturation. Consolidation
starts at six weeks and continues up to 10 weeks after the injury.
The cellular tissue becomes fibrous. Type III collagens trans-
form into collagen type I. Maturation starts at the tenth week
and continues for up to a year after the injury. Tenocyte metabo-
lism and tendon vascularization decrease until a scarred tendon
is formed.
The extensor tendon in zone I is extrasynovial, made out of
longitudinal fibers that are difficult to securely suture. The ter-
minal band is located directly underneath the skin, and perioste-
al and tendon-to-skin adhesions therefore frequently occur dur-
ing the healing process [33]. If the tendon callus is loaded pre-
maturely and too actively, it might lengthen and lead to a fixed
mallet deformity. The tendon recovers sufficient resistance to
active mobilization in the fifth week of immobilization [34]. This
phenomenon accounts for better results after the prolonged use
of a night splint [35].
Bony mallet injuries likewise heal in several phases [36]. The
inflammatory phase occurs during the first two weeks. Platelet
activation releases many components, including fibronectin,
platelet-derived growth factor, and transforming growth factor.
This process triggers the influx of inflammatory and repair cells
(fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and osteoblasts) into the fracture
site, contributing to the production of collagen type III. A prolif-
eration phase or formation of a cartilage callus occurs during the
third and fourth week. A bridging callus is formed and angio-
genesis occurs. The maturation phase or formation of a bone
callus occurs during the fifth to the eighth week. Trabecular bone
is produced from mesenchymal cells or from a transitional carti-
lage stage, and both contribute to collagen type I production.
Osteoblasts produce trabecular woven bone (randomly orient-
ed fibers) rapidly. Clinical consolidation is complete at this stage.
Remodeling starts at the twelfth week and contributes to the
production of collagen type I and then collagen type X. The
combined actions of osteoclast bone resorption and osteoblast
bone formation remodel the bone into a solid lamellar structure.
A bony mallet injury always involves an incomplete tendon
avulsion. Part of the distal end of the tendon remains attached
to the dorsal DIPJ capsule, which accounts for the more rapid
healing of these injuries in comparison to cases of tendinous
mallet finger. A persistent periosteal continuity favors bone cal-
lus formation [37].
Without treatment, acute mallet finger becomes a chronic de-
formity. Some authors have used a four-week threshold to de-
fine chronic mallet finger [6]; others have placed the threshold
at five weeks when surgical treatment is no longer effective [38].
Others have proposed that conservative treatment for acute mal-
let finger can be undertaken up to two months after the injury
[21]. In fact, all mallet finger deformities that do not respond to
the conventional treatment of acute mallet finger can be consid-
Type I, subcutaneous tendon rupture; type II, bony avulsion at the
base of the distal phalanx; type III, fracture
>
1/3 of the articular
surface with volar subluxation reducible with a dorsal splint; type
IV, fracture
>
1/3 of the articular surface with volar subluxation ir-
reducible with a splint.
Fig. 6. Modified Tubiana classification
I
II
III
IV
Vol. 43 / No. 2 / March 2016
139
ered chronic. Chronic mallet finger can develop esthetic and/or
functional complications. In particular, DIPJ extension deficits
and swan-neck deformities may be badly tolerated [6]. A bony
mallet injury can lead to functionally impairing DIPJ osteoar-
thritis [6].
TREATM ENT
The objective of treating acute mallet finger is to restore active
DIPJ extension. This requires restoring the length of the exten-
sor tendon and obtaining an appropriate healing response. Many
conservative and surgical techniques have been described.
Methods
Conservative treatments vary regarding the immobilization po-
sition, type of splint, and treatment duration (Fig. 7).
Since biomechanical studies have demonstrated that PIPJ mo-
bilization does not move the terminal extensor band, research-
ers no longer recommend PIPJ immobilization in the treatment
of mallet finger [39].
The DIPJ immobilization position varies among different au-
thors. Some have advocated hyperextension [40] and others a
straight immobilization [12,41]. Hyperextension aims at bring-
ing both tendon ends into contact to avoid healing with a length-
ened callus. Ischemic skin lesions [4] or, in bony mallet fingers,
DIPJ subluxation can occur if DIPJ hyperextension is excessive
[42]. We advise moderate hyperextension immobilization for
tendinous mallet injuries and straight immobilization for bony
mallet injuries [21].
Numerous immobilization devices have been described, with
a volar bearing [43], a dorsal bearing [44], or a combined dorsal
and volar bearing [41]. The drawbacks of a volar bearing are in-
sufficient DIPJ hyperextension and pulp occlusion that is not
usable during treatment. The main drawback of a dorsal or com-
bined bearing is pressure on the tendon healing site with corre-
spondingly elevated risks of skin maceration and nail dystrophy.
In order to counter these complications, some authors have pro-
posed a volar bearing on the middle phalanx combined with a
glued dorsal splint on the nail to avoid pressure on the tendon
healing site [21]. Custom-made splints yield better results than
off-the-shelf splints [29].
A consensus exists that immobilization for a tendinous mallet
finger injury should last longer than for a bony mallet injury be-
cause tendon healing takes longer than bone healing. For bony
mallet finger, treatment lasts between six and eight weeks, but
most studies have recommended six weeks [14,43]. For tendi-
nous mallet finger, treatment lasts between six and eight weeks,
but most studies have recommended eight weeks [43]. After an
initial phase of strict immobilization, many authors have pro-
posed continuing treatment with a night splint for two to four
weeks [4,29]. A level I study has proven, however, wearing a night
splint does not affect the outcome of treatment [29].
Poor patient compliance is the main drawback of conservative
treatments [35]. Despite explanations regarding the necessity of
strictly wearing a splint for a prolonged period of time, some pa-
tients remove or reposition the splint or give up the treatment
altogether. Patient cooperation is mandatory for obtaining good
results. Some authors have described using a glued splint to ad-
dress the issue of poor compliance [21].
Surgical treatments vary regarding the approach, principle of
reduction, and fixation equipment. The surgical approach can
be open or percutaneous. An open approach has the advantage
of providing direct access to the extensor tendon. The risks are
skin necrosis, infection, nail dystrophy, osteoarthritis, and stiff-
ness [7]. These risks are reduced in a percutaneous approach,
but this technique presents the risk of imperfect bone reduction.
Reduction and fixation of the displaced fragment can performed
directly and/or indirectly. Direct methods include the transos-
seous suture of a tendinous mallet or of a small bony fragment
[45], as well as fixation of a large bony fragment with a variety of
hardware, such as K-wires [38,46-49], screws [50], needles [51],
external fixators [52], tension wires [53], and plates [54,55]. In-
direct methods involve reducing and fixing the displaced bone
without going through the osteotendinous lesion. The main tech-
niques are transarticular DIPJ pinning and the Ishiguro method
(Fig. 8) [37]. The main drawbacks of these techniques are short-
term stiffness and septic arthritis and long-term osteoarthritis.
Some authors combine these techniques by performing a tran-
sosseous suture protected by a transarticular DIPJ wire and/or a
splint until the hardware is removed [38,46].
From left to right: volar splint, stack splint, and dorsal glued splint.
Fig. 7. Different splint types
Botero SS et al.
Mallet finger
140
Indications and contraindications
Most authors agree regarding the indications for the treatment
of closed mallet finger lesions in adults, but advocate a variety of
treatment techniques. The classification of the lesion is the most
important deciding factor. Patient history (including compliance
and occupation), the time elapsed since the initial trauma, and
the degree of the extension deficit also enter into consideration.
No therapeutic consensus exists. In the literature, specific indi-
cations are described, but no decision algorithm is given. For
example, some authors have proposed that health professionals
should always undergo surgical treatment in order to minimize
time off the job [56,57], while others have suggested that wear-
ing a glued splint on the nail leaves the pulp free to be used, en-
abling the patient to continue working [21]. Most authors have
described treating tendinous mallet fingers conservatively, ex-
cept for one researcher who reported treating them surgically
with a direct suture and transarticular DIPJ pinning [45]. Some
only consider the amount of fractured articular surface without
considering the presence of DIPJ subluxation when offering
surgical treatment. The threshold varies among authors, ranging
from above one third [38,46] to above 48% [31] or above two
thirds [10] of the articular surface. Others have taken into ac-
count the presence of irreducible subluxation despite proper
splinting, not considering the fractured articular surface when
offering surgical treatment [21,58]. Some authors have argued
that no indications for surgical treatment exist [7].
Given this lack of consensus, we propose a decision algorithm
based on a simple modification of Tubiana’s classification. All
mallet fingers should be treated conservatively with a dorsal glued
splint except for type IV lesions. A type IV lesion is a type III le-
sion with volar subluxation that is not reduced despite a dorsal
glued splint. No surgical technique has been proven superior in
treating this condition. Nonetheless, we propose the use of ex-
tra-articular fixed pinning (Fig. 9) [59].
Factors making patient compliance extremely unlikely (e.g.,
Alzheimer disease, dementia, or major psychiatric disorders) is
a relative contraindication for conservative treatment.
Results
No consensus exists for evaluating the results of treatment. At
least three methods of evaluation have been proposed in the lit-
erature. None take age into account, although some have argued
that age is directly proportional to the DIPJ residual extension
deficit [4,29]. The Crawford clinical classification involves four
clinical presentations based on two factors: the active extension
deficit measured in degrees and pain or the lack thereof [15].
We use it in type IV lesions according to the modified Tubiana clas-
sification (A). Under fluoroscopy the distal interphalangeal joint
(DIPJ) is flexed (B), and a first K-wire is pinned through the extensor
tendon into the middle phalanx. The wire is used as a lever that
pushes on the bony fragment once the DIPJ is extended (C). A sec-
ond K-wire is put across the DIPJ to avoid flexion (D).
Fig. 8. Ishiguro technique
A
B
C
D
An intramedullary 1.2-mm K-wire is put through the distal phalanx
percutaneously. A second threaded wire is introduced perpendicu-
larly to the long axis of the middle phalanx from a dorsal approach
and abuts the volar cortex to respect the flexor tendon. Both wires
are bent and fixed together with two connectors.
Fig. 9. Extra-articular fixed pinning
Vol. 43 / No. 2 / March 2016
141
The result is considered excellent if the extension deficit is be-
tween 0° and 10°, good if it is between 10° and 25°, average if it is
greater than 25° and poor if it is painful. The Bischoff classifica-
tion includes three radiological stages based on the interfrag-
mentary gap and the intra-articular step [60]. The result is ex-
cellent if there is no gap and no step, satisfactory if the gap is less
than 2 mm and/or the step is less than 1 mm with bony consoli-
dation, and poor if no bony consolidation or joint subluxation is
present. The schema presented by Warren et al. [4] and Abouna
and Brown [61] comprises three clinical stages based on the ac-
tive and passive extension deficit measured in degrees. The re-
sult is considered excellent if the active extension deficit is be-
tween 0° and 5°, average if it is between 5° and 15°, and poor if it
is greater than 15°. Although some authors have shown that no
correlation exists between the residual DIPJ extension deficit
Author Year
Level of
evidence
(I-V)
Case (n) Treatment
Results
Crawford EGFP
(%)
DIP
extension
deficit (°)
Complications
Stark et al. [9] 1987 - 36 Trans DIP K-wire+ORIF with K-wire - 2 0
Bauze and Bain [62] 1999 - 10 Suture+ORIF with K-wire - 5 2 Nail deformities, 1 superficial
infection, 1 pin track infection
Takami et al. [63] 2000 - 33 Trans DIP K-wire+ORIF with K-wire - 4 6 Slight osteoarthritis, 1 bone
fragmentation
Tetik and Gudemez [47] 2002 - 17 Extension block modified E17 1,6 0
Pegoli et al. [49] 2003 - 69 Ishiguro E30, G21, F13, P1 1 Pin tract infection, 2 nail
deformities
Kronlage and Faust [3] 2004 - 12 Screw fixation - 6 1 Screw prominence, 1 non
compliance
Badia et al. [1] 2004 - 16 K-wire fixation extension block - 2 0
Rocchi et al. [48] 2006 - 48 K-wire percutaneous «umbrella handle»
like
E11, G35, F2 5,1 1 Pin tract infection
Teoh and Lee [54] 2007 - 9 Hook plate fixation E4, G5 0 Dorsal soft-tissue swelling over
the dip joint
Lee et al. [46] 2009 - 32 K-wire percutaneous (double dorsal
K-wires)
E69, G25, F6 0,9 1 Superficial infection, 2 Nail
deformities, 3 nail ridgings
Zhang et al. [64] 2010 - 65 Trans DIP K-wire+pull out E52, G8, F4, P1 7 1 Pain
Phadnis et al. [65] 2010 - 20 Trans DIP K-wire+ORIF with K-wire E6, G10, F3, P1 1,25 1 Infection
O'Brien and Bailey [42] 2011 II 64 Splint E64, G18, F16, P2 4,4 23.8% (inflammation, pain,
superficial infection)
Tung et al. [66] 2012 - 13 Tenodesis E7, G5 0
Chung and Lee [38] 2012 - 14 Trans DIP K-wire+percutaneous K-wire E9, G5 1,8 1 Pin track infection
Kang and Lee [67] 2012 - 16 Trans DIP K-wire+ORIF with K-wire E11, G3, F2 2,5 3 Nail deformity, 1 flexion loss
5°
Tocco et al. [68] 2013 I 57 Splint+cast - 5 31.2% Swan neck
Lu et al. [45] 2013 IV 10 Trans DIP K-wire+pull-in suture E2, G7, F1 0 0
Miura [52] 2013 - 12 K-wire+mini-external fixator E10, G2 2 0
Kakinoki et al. [53] 2013 - 13 Tension band fixation - 0 1 Osteophyte, 1 joint stiffness
Devan [40] 2014 IV 15 Splint+elastic tape - 1,9 11%
Shimura et al. [50] 2014 - 20 Percutaneous screw fixation E7, G9, F4 6,5 1 Dorsal ridging, 1 nail bump
Miranda et al. [51] 2015 - 12 Blunt needle reduction - 4,6 1 Nail bump, 1 displacement
Acar et al. [55] 2015 IV 19 Ishiguro & hook plate E10, G9 3,9 5.2% Nail deformity, 10.4%
dorsal prominence
EGFP, E (excellent); G (good); F (fair); P (poor); DIP, distal interphalangeal; ORIF, open reduction and internal fixation.
Table 1. Acute mallet finger main series results
and patient satisfaction [29], the Crawford clinical classification
seems the most relevant because no direct correspondence has
been shown between the final radiological outcomes and the
clinical results.
The current consensus based on a Cochrane meta-analysis is
first-intention conservative treatment [7]. The main studies are
presented in Table 1. Most studies have shown no difference be-
tween conservative and surgical treatment, with their authors
advocating conservative treatment [44,69]. The only compara-
tive study of surgical versus conservative treatment showed no
statistically significant difference and recommended a conserva-
tive treatment strategy due to the potential complications of sur-
gical treatment [70]. All studies comparing conservative treat-
ments recommend the use of a thermoplastic splint, but no con-
sensus exists whether to use a dorsal or volar splint [13,42,61,68].
Botero SS et al.
Mallet finger
142
Among the studies of surgical treatment techniques, only one
compared the Ishiguro method to fixation with a hook plate. The
outcomes were not significantly different, but the hook plate
was found to increase the surgical time, decrease the use of fluo-
roscopy, hasten consolidation by a week, and shorten the delay
before returning to work [56]. Many surgical studies have been
published, but none are above level IV of evidence.
The complications of conservative treatment are frequent
(45%) and most often are benign and temporary. Skin lesions,
including maceration, ulcers, superficial infections, and nail dys-
trophy, are especially common [20]. Swan-neck deformity is
rare but much more impairing. The complication rate of surgi-
cal treatment has been reported to range from 3% to 53% [20,54].
These complications are less frequent but are often serious, in-
cluding: infection associated with a wire, osteoarthritis, stiffness,
nail dystrophy, and skin necrosis [7,38].
CONCLUSIONS
Closed acute mallet finger lesions, either tendinous or bony, are
frequent in adults. No evidence indicates that surgical treatment
is superior except in cases of irreducible volar DIPJ subluxation
despite the proper use of a splint. Treatment is mandatory to
avoid chronic lesions.
REFERENCES
1. Badia A, Riano F. A simple fixation method for unstable bony
mallet finger. J Hand Surg Am 2004;29:1051-5.
2. Bendre AA, Hartigan BJ, Kalainov DM. Mallet finger. J Am
Acad Orthop Surg 2005;13:336-44.
3. Kronlage SC, Faust D. Open reduction and screw fixation of
mallet fractures. J Hand Surg Br 2004;29:135-8.
4. Abouna JM, Brown H. The treatment of mallet finger: the
results in a series of 148 consecutive cases and a review of
the literature. Br J Surg 1968;55:653-67.
5. Alla SR, Deal ND, Dempsey IJ. Current concepts: mallet
finger. Hand (N Y) 2014;9:138-44.
6. Moss JG, Steingold RF. The long term results of mallet fin-
ger injury: a retrospective study of one hundred cases. Hand
1983;15:151-4.
7. Handoll HH, Vaghela MV. Interventions for treating mallet
finger injuries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(3):CD
004574.
8. Doyle JR. Extensor tendons acute injuries. In: Green DP,
editor. Operative hand surgery. 3rd ed. New York: Churchill
Livingstone; 1993. p.1950-87.
9. Stark HH, Gainor BJ, Ashworth CR, et al. Operative treat-
ment of intra-articular fractures of the dorsal aspect of the
distal phalanx of digits. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987;69:892-6.
10. Wehbe MA, Schneider LH. Mallet fractures. J Bone Joint
Surg Am 1984;66:658-69.
11. Nellans KW, Chung KC. Pediatric hand fractures. Hand Clin
2013;29:569-78.
12. Tubiana R. Mallet finger. In: Tubiana R, editor. Traite de
chirurgie de la main. Paris; New York: Masson; 1986. p.109-
21.
13. Pike J, Mulpuri K, Metzger M, et al. Blinded, prospective,
randomized clinical trial comparing volar, dorsal, and cus-
tom thermoplastic splinting in treatment of acute mallet fin-
ger. J Hand Surg Am 2010;35:580-8.
14. Valdes K, Naughton N, Algar L. Conservative treatment of
mallet finger: a systematic review. J Hand Ther 2015;28:
237-45.
15. Crawford GP. The molded polythene splint for mallet finger
deformities. J Hand Surg Am 1984;9:231-7.
16. de Jong JP, Nguyen JT, Sonnema AJ, et al. The incidence of
acute traumatic tendon injuries in the hand and wrist: a 10-
year population-based study. Clin Orthop Surg 2014;6:196-
202.
17. Clayton RA, Court-Brown CM. The epidemiology of mus-
culoskeletal tendinous and ligamentous injuries. Injury 2008;
39:1338-44.
18. Stark HH, Boyes JH, Wilson JN. Mallet finger. J Bone Joint
Surg Am 1962;44:1061-8.
19. Robb WA. The results of treatment of mallet finger. J Bone
Joint Surg Br 1959;41:546-9.
20. Stern PJ, Kastrup JJ. Complications and prognosis of treat-
ment of mallet finger. J Hand Surg Am 1988;13:329-34.
21. Facca S, Nonnenmacher J, Liverneaux P. Treatment of mal-
let finger with dorsal nail glued splint: retrospective analysis
of 270 cases. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2007;
93:682-9.
22. Lange RH, Engber WD. Hyperextension mallet finger. Or-
thopedics 1983;6:1426-31.
23. Ganayem M, Edelson G. Base of distal phalanx fracture in
children: a mallet finger mimic. J Pediatr Orthop 2005;25:
487-9.
24. Zancolli E. Structural and dynamic bases of hand surgery.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott; 1968.
25. Degreef I, De Smet L. Multiple simultaneous mallet fingers
in goalkeeper. Hand Surg 2009;14:143-4.
26. Yeh PC, Shin SS. Tendon ruptures: mallet, flexor digitorum
profundus. Hand Clin 2012;28:425-30.
27. Kleinbaum Y, Heyman Z, Ganel A, et al. Sonographic imag-
ing of mallet finger. Ultraschall Med 2005;26:223-6.
Vol. 43 / No. 2 / March 2016
143
28. Clavero JA, Alomar X, Monill JM, et al. MR imaging of liga-
ment and tendon injuries of the fingers. Radiographics 2002;
22:237-56.
29. Gruber JS, Bot AG, Ring D. A prospective randomized con-
trolled trial comparing night splinting with no splinting after
treatment of mallet finger. Hand (N Y) 2014;9:145-50.
30. Wang QC, Johnson BA. Fingertip injuries. Am Fam Physi-
cian 2001;63:1961-6.
31. Kim JK, Kim DJ. The risk factors associated with sublux-
ation of the distal interphalangeal joint in mallet fracture. J
Hand Surg Eur Vol 2015;40:63-7.
32. Sharma P, Maffulli N. Biology of tendon injury: healing, mod-
eling and remodeling. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact
2006;6:181-90.
33. Vaienti L, Merle M. Lésions de l’appareil extenseur. In: Mer-
le M, Dautel G, editors. La main traumatique. Paris: Mas-
son; 1997. p.233-50.
34. Mason ML. Rupture of tendons in the hand: with a study of
the extensor tendon insertions in the fingers. Surg Gynecol
Obst 1930;50:611-62.
35. Pratt DR, Bunnell S, Howard LD Jr. Mallet finger: classifica-
tion and methods of treatment. Am J Surg 1957;93:573-8.
36. Marsh DR, Li G. The biology of fracture healing: optimis-
ing outcome. Br Med Bull 1999;55:856-69.
37. Ishiguro T, Itoh Y, Yabe Y, et al. Extension block with Kirsch-
ner wire for fracture dislocation of the distal interphalangeal
joint. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg 1997;1:95-102.
38. Chung DW, Lee JH. Anatomic reduction of mallet fractures
using extension block and additional intrafocal pinning tech-
niques. Clin Orthop Surg 2012;4:72-6.
39. Katzman BM, Klein DM, Mesa J, et al. Immobilization of
the mallet finger: effects on the extensor tendon. J Hand Surg
Br 1999;24:80-4.
40. Devan D. A novel way of treating mallet finger injuries. J Hand
Ther 2014;27:325-8.
41. Stack G. Mallet finger. Lancet 1968;2:1303.
42. O’Brien LJ, Bailey MJ. Single blind, prospective, random-
ized controlled trial comparing dorsal aluminum and cus-
tom thermoplastic splints to stack splint for acute mallet fin-
ger. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011;92:191-8.
43. Smit JM, Beets MR, Zeebregts CJ, et al. Treatment options
for mallet finger: a review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;126:
1624-9.
44. Hart RG, Kleinert HE, Lyons K. The Kleinert modified dor-
sal finger splint for mallet finger fracture. Am J Emerg Med
2005;23:145-8.
45. Lu J, Jiang J, Xu L, et al. Modification of the pull-in suture
technique for mallet finger. Ann Plast Surg 2013;70:30-3.
46. Lee YH, Kim JY, Chung MS, et al. Two extension block
Kirschner wire technique for mallet finger fractures. J Bone
Joint Surg Br 2009;91:1478-81.
47. Tetik C, Gudemez E. Modification of the extension block
Kirschner wire technique for mallet fractures. Clin Orthop
Relat Res 2002;(404):284-90.
48. Rocchi L, Genitiempo M, Fanfani F. Percutaneous fixation
of mallet fractures by the “umbrella handle” technique. J Hand
Surg Br 2006;31:407-12.
49. Pegoli L, Toh S, Arai K, et al. The Ishiguro extension block
technique for the treatment of mallet finger fracture: indica-
tions and clinical results. J Hand Surg Br 2003;28:15-7.
50. Shimura H, Wakabayashi Y, Nimura A. A novel closed re-
duction with extension block and flexion block using Kirsch-
ner wires and microscrew fixation for mallet fractures. J Or-
thop Sci 2014;19:308-12.
51. Miranda BH, Murugesan L, Grobbelaar AO, et al. PBNR:
percutaneous blunt needle reduction of bony mallet injuries.
Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg 2015;19:81-3.
52. Miura T. Extension block pinning using a small external fix-
ator for mallet finger fractures. J Hand Surg Am 2013;38:
2348-52.
53. Kakinoki R, Ohta S, Noguchi T, et al. A modified tension
band wiring technique for treatment of the bony mallet fin-
ger. Hand Surg 2013;18:235-42.
54. Teoh LC, Lee JY. Mallet fractures: a novel approach to inter-
nal fixation using a hook plate. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2007;
32:24-30.
55. Acar MA, Guzel Y, Gulec A, et al. Clinical comparison of
hook plate fixation versus extension block pinning for bony
mallet finger: a retrospective comparison study. J Hand Surg
Eur Vol 2015;40:832-9.
56. Baratz ME, Schmidt CC, Hugues TB. Extensor tendon inju-
ries. In: Green DP, Wolfe SW, editors. Green’s operative hand
surgery. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2010. p.187-
218.
57. Chauhan A, Jacobs B, Andoga A, et al. Extensor tendon in-
juries in athletes. Sports Med Arthrosc 2014;22:45-55.
58. Reading GR. Discussion of reassessment of surgery of mal-
let finger. Plastic Reconst Surg 1994;93:150-1.
59. Prunières G, Gouzou S, Facca S, et al. Treatment of unstable
distal phalanx fractures by extra-articular DIP pinning: a se-
ries of 12 cases. Chir Main. Forthcoming 2016.
60. Bischoff R, Buechler U, De Roche R, et al. Clinical results of
tension band fixation of avulsion fractures of the hand. J Hand
Surg Am 1994;19:1019-26.
61. Warren RA, Norris SH, Ferguson DG. Mallet finger: a trial
of two splints. J Hand Surg Br 1988;13:151-3.
Botero SS et al.
Mallet finger
144
62. Bauze A, Bain GI. Internal suture for mallet finger fracture. J
Hand Surg Br 1999;24:688-92.
63. Takami H, Takahashi S, Ando M. Operative treatment of
mallet finger due to intra-articular fracture of the distal pha-
lanx. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2000;120:9-13.
64. Zhang X, Meng H, Shao X, et al. Pull-out wire fixation for
acute mallet finger fractures with k-wire stabilization of the
distal interphalangeal joint. J Hand Surg Am 2010;35:1864-9.
65. Phadnis J, Yousaf S, Little N, et al. Open reduction internal
fixation of the unstable mallet fracture. Tech Hand Up Ex-
trem Surg 2010;14:155-9.
66. Tung KY, Tsai MF, Chang SH, et al. Modified tenodesis
method for treatment of mallet fractures. Ann Plast Surg
2012;69:622-6.
67. Kang HJ, Lee SK. Open accurate reduction for irreducible
mallet fractures through a new pulp traction technique with
primary tendon repair. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2012;46:438-
43.
68. Tocco S, Boccolari P, Landi A, et al. Effectiveness of cast im-
mobilization in comparison to the gold-standard self-remov-
al orthotic intervention for closed mallet fingers: a random-
ized clinical trial. J Hand Ther 2013;26:191-200.
69. Bloom JM, Khouri JS, Hammert WC. Current concepts in
the evaluation and treatment of mallet finger injury. Plast
Reconstr Surg 2013;132:560e-566e.
70. Auchincloss JM. Mallet-finger injuries: a prospective, con-
trolled trial of internal and external splintage. Hand 1982;14:
168-73.
