Splinting versus Percutaneous Pinning for the Treatment of Soft Tissue Mallet Finger: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare percutaneous pinning versus splinting of soft tissue mallet finger injury to determine if there are differences in residual extensor lag and complication rates. Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age undergoing mallet finger injury treatment from 2011 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria included bony or open mallet finger injury and incomplete documentation of residual extensor lag at final follow-up. Complications, including infection, hardware fixation failure and wound complications, were collected from follow-up clinic notes. Those treated with percutaneous pinning were compared to those treated non-surgically with splinting. Results: Of the 150 soft tissue mallet finger injuries that met the inclusion criteria, 126 were treated with splinting, and 24 were treated with percutaneous pinning. There were no differences in residual extensor lag between groups (Splinting: 5.4°, Pinning: 5.8°, p = 0.874). However, the pinning group had a higher overall complication rate than the splinting group (20.8% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.001). Conclusions: Surgery may be an effective treatment method for soft tissue mallet finger, but due to the higher rate of complication and the increased expense of a surgical procedure, splinting should be the preferred treatment method for most of these injuries. Level of Evidence: Level III (Therapeutic).

Correction to: Outcomes After Laparoscopic Conversion of Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding (LAGB) to Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) or Single Anastomosis Duodenal Switch (SADS).

In the original article the Conflict of Interest statement was incomplete. Dr. Roslin discloses that he is a teaching consultant for Ethicon and Medtronics. He also has received research funding from Medtronics.

Outcomes After Laparoscopic Conversion of Failed Adjustable Gastric Banding (LAGB) to Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG) or Single Anastomosis Duodenal Switch (SADS).

BACKGROUND: Inadequate weight loss following LAGB (laparoscopic adjusted gastric banding) requiring band removal and conversion to another bariatric procedure is common. There is a paucity of objective data to guide procedure selection. Single anastomosis modifications (SIPS, SADI, SADS) of the duodenal switch biliopancreatic division (DS-BPD) are being investigated. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become the most prevalent primary bariatric procedure and has been used for revision following LAGB. PURPOSE: The purpose is to investigate single-stage LAGB removal to LSG SADS (single anastomosis duodenal switch). A matched cohort analysis compared each revision to a similar patient having a primary procedure. This was performed to understand the impact of prior banding on outcomes with each procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study to investigate the outcomes of revision of LAGB for inadequate weight loss to LSG or SADS. To determine whether prior banding impairs results, a matched cohort was done comparing each revision to a patient that had a primary procedure. RESULTS: As expected, patients who had SADS had greater weight loss than LSG. There was no difference in peri-operative and early complications. Both procedures resulted in weight loss. Importantly, with matched cohort, prior LAGB decreased weight loss outcomes in LSG, but not SADS. CONCLUSION: Conversion of LAGB to LSG or SADS results in weight loss. The presence of LAGB decreases weight loss in LSG, but not in SADS. This can have important implications for long-term outcomes.