Effects of splinting for Mallet Finger of the Tendon Origin

INTERVENTION: Patients were divided into two groups, a control group that underwent conventional immobilization with the DIP joint slightly extended, and a two‐step immobilization group that underwent treatment with an initial first splint that immobilized the finger with the PIP joint flexed and the DIP joint slightly extended, followed by a second splint that immobilized the DIP joint slightly flexed in the conventional manner. CONDITION: mallet finger of tendon origin PRIMARY OUTCOME: Assessments were carried out twice: an initial assessment at the first visit, and another at the end of treatment in week 16. The following items were compared between patients in the control group and those treated by two‐step splinting: (1) sex, (2) age, (3) injured finger, (4) range of motion (ROM) of active flexion of the DIP joint at the first visit, (5) ROM of active flexion of the DIP joint at the end of treatment, (6) ROM of active extension of the DIP joint at the start of immobilization, (7) ROM of active extension of the DIP joint at the end of treatment, (8) visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at the first visit, (9) VAS pain score at the end of treatment, and (10) outcome (three‐grade evaluation according to Abouna and Brown's criteria. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were mallet finger with or without fracture, age 18 years or greater, and treatment with a period of continuous orthosis immobilization for 6 weeks or 8 weeks.