A comparative controlled trial of a new perforated splint and a traditional splint in the treatment of mallet finger. The conservative treatment of mallet finger with a simple splint: a case report. Mallet finger: a trial of two splints. Splinting the hand in the functional position after brain impairment: a randomized, controlled trial.
A perforated mallet finger splint is described and the results of a controlled trial comparing its use with a conventional splint are presented. The perforated splint gives superior results by virtue of the fact that it does not require to be removed for purposes of hygiene and can thus produce a satisfactory result even in those patients who fail to grasp the technique of removal and replacement of the splint. Sixty patients with mallet finger deformity were randomly treated with either a Stack or a custom-made padded aluminium alloy malleable finger splint. Both splints were equally effective in correcting the deformity but the aluminium alloy splint was able to be fitted to a wider variety of finger shapes and sizes and caused significantly fewer skin complications. Over a period of twelve months, 116 cases of mallet finger were allocated randomly to treatment with either a Stack or Abouna splint. The two splints were equally effective, producing a cure or a significant improvement in approximately 50% of cases. However, the Stack splint was much preferred by the patients, who found it more comfortable, more robust and easier to keep clean. To evaluate the effects of 4 weeks of hand splinting on the length of finger and wrist flexor muscles, hand function, and pain in people with acquired brain impairment.
                Randomized, assessor-blinded trial.
                Rehabilitation center in Australia.
                Twenty-eight adults with acquired brain impairment, all within 6 months of the first injury. There was 1 withdrawal.
                Subjects in both experimental (n=17) and control (n=11) groups participated in routine therapy-motor training for upper-limb use and upper-limb stretches-5 days a week. The experimental group also wore an immobilizing hand splint in the functional position (10 degrees -30 degrees wrist extension) for a maximum of 12 hours each night for the duration of the 4-week intervention period.
                The length of the wrist and extrinsic finger flexor muscles was evaluated by measuring the torque-controlled range of wrist extension with the fingers extended. Functional hand use was evaluated with the Motor Assessment Scale. Pain was evaluated with a visual analog scale.
                The effects of splinting were statistically nonsignificant and clinically unimportant. At follow-up, estimates of treatment effects slightly favored the control group: range of motion at the wrist favored controls by 2 degrees (95% confidence interval [CI], -7.2 degrees to 3.2 degrees ), function favored controls by 0.2 points (95% CI, -2.7 to 2.3), and pain favored the experimental group by 1cm (95% CI, -4.6 to 2.2).
                An overnight splint-wearing regimen with the affected hand in the functional position does not produce clinically beneficial effects in adults with acquired brain impairment.
There was insufficient evidence from comparisons tested within randomised controlled trials to establish the relative effectiveness of different, either custom-made or off-the-shelf, finger splints used for treating mallet finger injury. There was a useful reminder that splints used for prolonged immobilisation should be robust enough for everyday use, and of the central importance of patient adherence to instructions for splint use. There was insufficient evidence to determine when surgery is indicated.