View clinical trials related to Mallet Fracture.
Filter by:Many common arm fractures have an excellent prognosis with little more than symptomatic treatment. When studying these fractures, investigators find that a substantial number of patients do not attend follow-up appointments. The difficulty of maneuvering in big cities, the cost of parking, the co-pay for the visit and the wait times for x-ray and doctor are all inconveniences that some patients might prefer to avoid. Building on prior research, it is appropriate to offer patients with common minor upper extremity fractures that have an excellent prognosis optional follow-up after the first visit. The plan would be to be available by phone, email and subsequent appointment at the patient's discretion if they felt that the recovery was off course. Benefit to individual participants is unlikely. The study will benefit the society as a whole, by providing a better understanding of these common fractures. It can also affect the economics of our health system by avoiding further follow-up appointments. Primary null hypothesis: There is no difference in patient outcome 2-6 months after injury between patients that return for a second visit, and patients that do not. Secondary null hypothesis: There is no difference in patient satisfaction 2-6 months after injury between patients that return for a second visit, and patients that do not.
Intra-articular fractures at the dorsal base of the distal phalanx of the hand are usually referred to as Mallet fractures. Treatment of Mallet fractures remains controversial. Although no differences in clinical results are reported between conservative treatment and operative treatment, operative treatment is suggested for fractures involving more than 30% of articular surface. There are many different operative techniques, all with specific disadvantages. The investigators hypothesis is that operative treatment of Mallet fractures with one Meniscus Arrow® has a better outcome than conservative treatment with a Mallet splint.