Traumatic mallet finger: 2026 update

A fingertip that will no longer straighten after an unremarkable knock: tucking in a sheet, catching a ball badly, pulling up a sock. The injury is simple, the treatment looks trivial, and that is exactly where the result is decided: between a splint that holds for eight weeks and a splint that gives up, the gap measured in a randomised trial is 23.8 points of treatment failure.

Summary written from primary sources verified one by one on PubMed: identifier resolved, journal, year and author list checked, abstract read before citation. Full bibliography at the end of the article.

Clinical summary

What is a mallet finger, and why does it not correct itself?

A lesion of a few millimetres, an extensor mechanism that loses its terminal pulley, and a joint that tips over. Understanding the mechanics avoids the two most frequent errors: underestimating the length of treatment, and overestimating the value of surgery.

The lesion, in one sentence and three consequences

Mallet finger denotes a deformity of the fingertip in which the distal interphalangeal joint stays flexed and can no longer be actively extended. It results from a traumatic interruption of the terminal extensor mechanism, either at its insertion on the distal phalanx or slightly proximal to it at the joint2.

The sign that identifies it is also the one that distinguishes it from stiffness: the joint can be extended passively, but that extension is not maintained as soon as you let go2. It is the test to do routinely, and it takes two seconds.

Three consequences follow, and they govern everything else:

• Healing requires maintained continuity. A ruptured tendon left in a lengthened position does not heal at the right length. That is why immobilisation in extension must be continuous, and why a single flexion during treatment “resets” the lesion1.
• The lag does not correct spontaneously. The reference review says so unambiguously: the extensor lag associated with this deformity does not improve without treatment, and inadequate management leads to chronic functional loss and stiffness of the finger2.
• The imbalance can travel proximally. Since the extensor mechanism is a chain, the loss of distal pull transfers force to the central slip, which can tip the proximal interphalangeal joint into hyperextension: that is the swan-neck deformity, a late complication whose correction is surgical2.

The splint does not “hold” the finger: it holds the two ends of the tendon close enough to each other, for long enough, for them to meet. A single flexion is enough to undo weeks of work.

Two forms, one mechanism

The injury can be purely tendinous, the tendon pulls off its insertion, or bony, the tendon taking with it a fragment of the dorsal cortex of the distal phalanx. Both forms produce the same deformity, but they are not treated in quite the same way when the fragment is large or the joint subluxes: that is the subject of the chapter on classification.

Who gets injured, how, and which fingers are affected?

A sportsperson's injury, so they say. That is true of only some cases, and the most frequent mechanism in community practice is so unremarkable that it surprises the patient themselves.

The profile

The injury is mostly seen in young men, in the third and fourth decades ; after the fifth decade, the difference between the sexes disappears2. The reference NCBI chapter adds a nuance about frequency: the picture is seen in young to middle-aged men, but also in older women1.

The dominant hand is involved in about 74 % of cases2, which is not neutral for the impact on work: eight weeks of splinting on the dominant index finger of a tradesperson is not managed like the non-dominant little finger of an office worker.

As for which fingers are affected, the order of frequency is consistent from one source to another: the middle finger first, then the ring finger, the little finger and the index ; involvement of the thumb is rare2. The NCBI chapter for its part mentions the little, ring and middle fingers of the dominant hand as the most frequently involved1: the exact order varies, but it is indeed the last three rays that dominate.

The mechanisms, from the sports field to the sock

The mechanisms classically described number three2 :

• A direct blow to the pulp, finger extended: a ball caught head-on at basketball, volleyball or handball. This is the mechanism known as baseball finger.
• Forced flexion against resistance during an unremarkable movement: tucking in a sheet, pulling up a sock, putting away a suitcase. It is the most frequent in community practice, and the one the patient plays down most.
• A crush injury, a finger caught in a door, with or without a wound.

A case published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports also recalls this injury's place in sports trauma: according to its authors it accounts for 2 % of sports emergencies and is the most frequent closed tendon injury in contact sports and in the workplace15.

The unremarkable nature of the triggering movement is a clinical datum in its own right: it explains late presentations, and it also explains that the injury occurs outside any sporting context. A case published in Anaesthesia Reports thus describes a mallet finger sustained by an anaesthetist during tracheal intubation, treated without surgery, with a prolonged absence from clinical work before full recovery17.

How do you classify the injury, and why does that govern treatment?

One classification is used universally. It comes down to four types, it is read on a lateral radiograph, and it is what separates the fingers that are splinted from those that are operated on.

Doyle's classification

The operative indications retained by that same chapter are explicit: subluxation of the distal interphalangeal joint, a fragment involving more than a third of the articular surface, a joint gap of more than 2 mm, rupture or complete division of the extensor tendon, and complex injuries1.

What the radiograph must show

A strict lateral view of the finger, centred on the distal interphalangeal joint, is enough. Three things are looked for on it, in this order:

1. Joint congruity. Palmar subluxation of the distal phalanx is the sign that tips things towards surgery, whatever the size of the fragment1.
2. The size of the fragment, relative to the articular surface, that is what separates IV-B from IV-C.
3. The gap between the fragment and its bed, for which the threshold used is 2 mm1.

One useful detail so as not to over-treat: in a retrospective comparison of early and delayed splinting, the presence or absence of a dorsal rim fracture involving less than a third of the articular surface did not change the final result9. A small bony flake therefore does not change what is done.

Which orthosis to choose, and why that is the real question?

It is the only point in this condition where several randomised trials answer each other. And their message is not the expected one: the orthosis does not change the final extensor lag, it changes the probability that the treatment is seen through.

What the Cochrane review established, and what it could not

The Cochrane review of interventions for mallet finger included four trials totalling 278 participants and 283 fingers. Its verdict is clear and should be quoted as it stands: the evidence from randomised trials was insufficient to establish the relative effectiveness of the different orthoses, custom-made or prefabricated, and insufficient too to determine when surgery is indicated4.

The authors nevertheless draw two practical lessons from it, and those are the ones that have aged best: an orthosis worn continuously for weeks must be robust enough for daily use, and the patient's adherence to the wearing instructions is central4. One of the included trials reported a splint that fell apart (degraded rubber coating, rusted metal wires) and which participants unsurprisingly liked less.

The trial that shifted the question

A single-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial compared three orthoses in 64 patients with an acute type 1a or 1b mallet finger: a prefabricated Stack splint (control), a padded dorsal aluminium splint, and a custom-made thermoplastic orthosis. All were worn continuously for eight weeks, followed by gradual weaning over four weeks with exercises7.

The primary result is a non-result: no difference in extensor lag between the three groups, at either twelve or twenty weeks. The secondary result, on the other hand, is spectacular: treatment failure affected 23.8 % of patients in the Stack group and 23.8 % in the dorsal aluminium group, against none in the custom-made thermoplastic group (p = 0,04)7. The authors also note a moderate negative correlation between adherence and extensor lag: the less the patient wears it, the greater the lag.

Skin complications, quantified by meta-analysis

A systematic review with meta-analysis pooled seven controlled trials totalling 491 participants to compare types of orthosis on three outcomes: complications, extensor lag and success rate by Abouna and Brown's criteria6.

The result is consistent with the previous one, and this time it concerns tolerance:

• prefabricated orthoses carried three times the risk of skin complication compared with all other orthoses (relative risk 3.17; 95 % confidence interval: 1.19 to 8.43; moderate-quality evidence);
• and nearly seven times that risk compared with custom-made thermoplastic orthoses alone (relative risk 6.72; 1.59 to 28.46);
• by contrast, no difference in success rate (relative risk 0.99; 0.80 to 1.22; very low quality evidence) or in extensor lag (standardised mean difference 0.03; −0.29 to 0.36; moderate-quality evidence)6.

And non-removable immobilisation?

Two trials have studied it, with converging but nuanced results.

The first compared, in 57 subjects, immobilisation with a thermoformable cast (Quickcast) against a removable lever-type thermoplastic orthosis. The removable group had an extensor lag 5° greater on average at twelve weeks (p = 0.05), and two factors proved unfavourable: marked oedema and older age14.

The second, in 58 patients, compared the same Quickcast against a custom-made thermoplastic orthosis. This time no difference in final lag or in recourse to surgery, but fewer skin complications (33 % against 64 %) and less pain in the cast group13.

Reading these studies together is clear enough to guide practice: what matters is that the finger never flexes. A removable orthosis that is well tolerated and actually worn is worth a cast; a removable orthosis taken off for washing loses its advantage.

How long to immobilise, and what if the patient arrives late?

Two questions the patient always asks, and to which the literature gives unusually clear answers for this condition.

The timetable

The reference protocol is stable from one source to another: continuous immobilisation of the distal interphalangeal joint in full extension for six to eight weeks, followed by night-time wear for a further two to six weeks1. The overview review keeps six to eight weeks of permanent wear then gradual weaning over the following two weeks2, and O'Brien's trial applied eight weeks of continuous wear followed by graded weaning over four weeks with exercises7.

One point of functional anatomy is worth explaining to the patient: only the distal interphalangeal joint should be immobilised. The proximal interphalangeal joint stays free and must be mobilised from day one, that is what prevents the flexion stiffness that is most disabling in the long term.

Does the extra night-time wear serve any purpose?

The question was put to a randomised trial. Fifty-one patients who had completed six to eight weeks of continuous immobilisation were allocated between a month of additional night splinting and none. No difference was found in final extensor lag, in disability, or in satisfaction8.

That same trial gives two figures to have in mind before promising the patient a result: the mean final extensor lag was 14°, and 34 % of patients (14 of the 41 assessed in person) kept a lag of 20° or more. The authors put it plainly: residual lags of 20° and more are common. The initial lag and the initial flexion did in fact predict the final lag, explaining 28 % of its variability8.

A well-treated mallet finger leaves on average fourteen degrees of lag. Saying so at the first consultation stops the patient experiencing their normal result as a failure.

The patient who arrives late

This is the most frequent situation in the clinic, since the triggering movement is unremarkable and the pain is modest. The answer is reassuring and it is not new.

A comparison of two groups of 40 patients (treatment started within two weeks of injury on one side, more than four weeks after on the other), measured the success of splinting, defined as active extension with no more than 10° of residual lag. Success in 17 patients out of 21 in the early group, and in 15 out of 19 in the delayed group. Neither the presence of a dorsal rim fracture involving less than a third of the articular surface, nor the type of splint used, changed the final result. The authors conclude that splinting was as effective in the late-treated population as in the early-treated one9.

Should a mallet finger be operated on?

The question looks decisive; it matters far less than the choice of orthosis, and the trials that have put it directly all give the same answer.

What the systematic review establishes

A systematic review gathered 44 studies reporting clinical results: 22 on surgical treatments, 17 on non-surgical ones. The two figures to remember are remarkably close5 :

• a mean extensor lag of 5.7° after surgery, against 7.6° after non-surgical treatment ;
• a complication rate of 14.5 % after surgery, against 12.8 % after non-surgical treatment.

Five studies compared the two strategies directly, with divergent results and recommendations. The authors' conclusion is explicit: both treatments give excellent clinical results, the available evidence does not allow us to determine when surgery is indicated, and these treatments appear equivalent and should be individualised5. It is the same conclusion the Cochrane review had drawn fourteen years earlier4.

The randomised trials that put the question head-on

On tendinous mallet finger. One trial allocated 48 patients between a thermoplastic orthosis and Kirschner wire fixation. At sixteen weeks, no significant difference in final extension or in extensor lag. Both groups showed the same pattern of early loss of extension after the immobilisation was removed, partly recovered through regular active exercise11.

On bony mallet finger with a fragment greater than a third, without initial subluxation. A level I randomised trial compared splinting with extension-block pinning in 32 patients randomised, 28 analysed. At six months, no difference in active extensor lag or in function and pain scores. Better still: flexion, active range and pulp-to-palm distance were better in the splinting group. But three patients in that group developed a secondary subluxation, which leads the authors to a nuanced conclusion: splinting is safe and effective for restoring mobility, it does not sufficiently prevent secondary subluxation, and radiographic monitoring during immobilisation appears necessary10.

On the comparison with an anchor technique. A level Ib randomised trial compared an anchor technique with conservative treatment in 29 patients. An extensor lag of 8.1° after surgery against 6.1° with conservative treatment, return to work at 63.2 days against 53.7, final distal interphalangeal flexion of 54.5° against 58.3°. And one result that is not trivial: radiographic joint degeneration was seen in four patients in the surgical group and in none in the conservative group at one year12.

What difference does a hand that works, or that plays, make?

The cost of this injury is almost never medical: it is an occupational and sporting cost, and it falls on the dominant hand three times out of four.

An injury that affects the hand that is used

Two figures set out the problem. The dominant hand is involved in about 74 % of cases2, and treatment requires six to eight weeks of continuous immobilisation1. Applied to a tradesperson, a cook, a healthcare worker, a musician or a hairdresser, that is not settled with a prescription: it is planned for.

The sporting side is documented too. Mallet finger is said to account for 2 % of sports emergencies and to be the most frequent closed tendon injury both in contact sports and in the workplace15. The classic mechanism, a ball caught on the pulp with the finger extended, mostly concerns ball sports where the catch is made bare-handed.

What the trials actually measure about return

Only one quantified figure for return exists in the randomised literature, and it comes from a level Ib trial comparing an anchor technique with conservative treatment in 29 patients: return to work at 63.2 days on average after surgery, against 53.7 days after conservative treatment12. Nine days apart, in favour of non-surgical treatment: one more argument, if one were needed, for not operating on a closed injury by default.

For return to sport, one has to be frank: no study has evaluated the terms or the timing of return to sport in this injury. What is done in practice is reasoning (a gradual return once active extension is achieved and stable, protection during activities exposing the finger to a direct blow) and it must be presented as such to the patient and the coach.

The case of the anaesthetist published in Anaesthesia Reports illustrates the order of magnitude of the impact when the hand is the tool of the trade: the injury, managed without surgery, required a significant absence from clinical work before a good recovery and a return to work17. The authors devote part of their discussion to contributing factors and prevention strategies, which, for an injury reputed to be benign, says enough about its real cost.

What to say at the first consultation

Three messages, and it is better to give them together:

• The duration cannot be compressed. Six to eight weeks of continuous wear, plus the weaning. It is not negotiable against a work diary, because an interruption restarts the count1.
• The expected result is not perfection. Fourteen degrees of residual lag on average, one third of patients at 20° or more8. On a long finger, that lag is most often well tolerated functionally.
• Surgery shortens nothing. It even lengthens the return to work by nine days in the only trial that measured it12, for an equivalent final lag5.

What do you rehabilitate after the immobilisation?

This is the part of treatment that falls to the physiotherapist, and paradoxically the least studied. A recent trial nevertheless brings something we did not have, and it concerns exactly that moment.

The phenomenon everyone observes, finally described

A level II randomised trial compared, in 48 patients with a tendinous mallet finger, a thermoplastic orthosis against Kirschner wire fixation. Beyond its primary result, no difference at sixteen weeks, it documents a clinical observation every practitioner knows and nobody had quantified: a loss of extension occurs in the days following removal of the immobilisation, whatever it was, and it is partly recovered through routine active exercise11.

The authors conclude that sustained active exercise appears to favour recovery of extension at the distal interphalangeal joint11. The wording is cautious, it is a secondary result of a trial that was not testing this question, but it finally gives some support to what practice has always done.

The trial brings a second element, useful for prediction: the final extension of the joint was correlated with the extension obtained under immobilisation (r = 0.60) and with the maximum extension of the contralateral finger (rho = 0.54)11. In other words, you have to look at the healthy finger opposite before setting a goal: a patient whose contralateral distal interphalangeal joint does not go beyond 0° will not do better on the injured side.

The programme, session by session

During immobilisation (weeks 0 to 8). The physiotherapist's role is not nil, it is preventive:

• Active mobilisation of the proximal interphalangeal joint, from day one and at every session. It is stiffness in flexion of that joint which leaves the most troublesome functional sequelae.
• Mobilisation of the metacarpophalangeal joints and the wrist, and maintenance of overall grip on the affected side.
• Oedema control. This is not a cosmetic concern: in Tocco's trial, marked oedema and older age had a negative influence on the final extensor lag14. Elevation, gentle drainage proximal to the splint, checking that the orthosis is not constricting.
• Checking the orthosis at every session : fit, skin condition, no possible flexion. Reminder of the changing protocol, with the phalanx held in extension.

At weaning (weeks 8 to 12). The trial protocols provide for gradual removal over two to four weeks with exercises27. In practice:

• gradual daytime removal, orthosis kept at night and for risky activities;
• active extension of the distal interphalangeal joint, repeated in short frequent sets rather than in long sessions: this is the movement Zhu's trial associates with recovery11 ;
• progressive, unforced active flexion : regaining the curl is done without passive stretching into flexion, which would lengthen the fresh tendon scar;
• monitoring of extensor lag at every session: a return of the lag means putting the orthosis back on continuously for a few days and slowing the weaning.

What not to do. Adding a night orthosis after a correctly conducted full immobilisation adds nothing: the randomised trial that tested it found no difference in lag, disability or satisfaction8. And forcing flexion of the distal interphalangeal joint in the first weeks of weaning has no basis at all, whereas the risk of recreating tendon lengthening is mechanically real.

The table of modalities, with the level of evidence available

An editorial appraisal applying GRADE principles to the question of treating traumatic mallet finger. No formal GRADE assessment and no learned society guideline exists for this condition: the Cochrane review explicitly stopped at a finding of insufficient evidence4.

What do real case reports teach us?

Three published cases, with their identifiers. None describes an ordinary mallet finger: those are precisely the ones that teach something.

How do you apply all this on Monday morning?

A frequent injury, a long treatment, and a result that depends almost entirely on what the patient does between sessions: this is a condition in which the first consultation is worth more than all the others.

The first session, in six points

1. Confirm. Active extension impossible, passive extension free and not maintained on release2. Two seconds, and that is the diagnosis.
2. Rule out what is not a traumatic mallet finger. Is there an injury? Sudden onset? No palpable mass? Not a child? Without those four answers, you investigate before splinting1516.
3. Insist on the lateral radiograph if it has not been done: it is joint congruity you are looking for, not only the fragment1.
4. Make, or have made, a custom orthosis. It is the only choice that has shown a difference: 0 % failure against 23.8 %7, and it divides the risk of skin complication by nearly seven6.
5. Give the wearing instruction word for word, and have it repeated back. Eight weeks, day and night, changing it while holding extension, one flexion means starting again.
6. Announce the expected result. Fourteen degrees of residual lag on average, one patient in three at 20° or more8. A forewarned patient does not experience their normal result as a failure.

What you follow up, and how often

Who to refer to, and when

• Hand surgeon, for a wound (types II and III), a fracture involving more than a third of the articular surface, a subluxation, a joint gap greater than 2 mm, a complex injury1, or a subluxation appearing under splinting10.
• Hand surgeon again, for an established swan-neck deformity, whose correction is surgical2.
• Medical opinion before any splinting, for a non-traumatic mallet finger, of gradual onset, with a palpable mass, or in a child1516.
• Occupational physician: the impact on work is the real cost of this injury, which affects the dominant hand in about three quarters of cases2 and requires eight weeks of splinting.

Frequently asked questions

Will my finger be completely straight at the end?

Not always, and it is better to know that from the start. In the randomised trial that is most informative on this point, the mean final extensor lag was 14°, and 34 % of patients kept a lag of 20° or more8. The systematic review gives more favourable means: 7.6° after splinting5, but a moderate residual lag is the rule rather than the exception, and it is most often well tolerated.

What happens if I take the splint off once?

The count starts again from zero. That is not a teaching device: the reference chapter states that any flexion of the joint during the splinting process means starting again1. The healing tendon is brought back into a lengthened position, and the work of the past weeks is lost.

Can I take the splint off to wash my hands?

Yes, provided you hold the last phalanx in extension with the other hand throughout: you slide the splint off, you clean, you dry, you put it back, never letting the finger drop. If the patient is not sure they can do that, non-removable immobilisation is an alternative: in a randomised trial it gave 5° less lag than a removable orthosis at twelve weeks14.

Should it be operated on for a better result?

No, for closed injuries without subluxation. The systematic review of 44 studies finds 5.7° of lag after surgery against 7.6° after splinting, with comparable complication rates (14.5 % against 12.8 %), and concludes that both treatments are equivalent and should be individualised5. A randomised trial even observed radiographic joint degeneration in four operated patients against none of the conservatively treated ones at one year12.

I waited six weeks before consulting, is it too late?

No. A comparison of two groups of 40 patients, treatment started within two weeks against more than four weeks after the injury, found success in 17 patients out of 21 in the early group and 15 out of 19 in the delayed group9. The full splinting treatment remains indicated, with the same requirement about wear.

Which splint should I buy from the chemist?

The question is worth turning round: the off-the-shelf prefabricated splint, of the Stack type, showed 23.8 % treatment failure against 0 % for a custom-made thermoplastic orthosis in a multicentre randomised trial7, and a risk of skin complication multiplied by nearly seven in meta-analysis6. A custom-made orthosis, made by a trained physiotherapist or occupational therapist, is not a luxury: it is what makes the difference between a treatment seen through and a treatment abandoned.

Can I go back to sport?

Not during the eight weeks of continuous wear, except for activities that pose no risk to the finger and with the orthosis in place. No study has evaluated the terms of return to sport in this injury; the practical marker is that of weaning: a gradual return once active extension is achieved and stable, with protection during activities carrying a risk of a direct blow.

My middle finger goes into hyperextension, is that normal?

No, and it warrants an opinion. It is the swan-neck deformity : the loss of distal pull transfers force to the central slip and tips the proximal interphalangeal joint into hyperextension. Its correction is surgical2, and it is picked up by monitoring that joint at every session.

Bibliography

Every reference was verified individually in PubMed: identifier resolved, journal, year, volume and author list checked, abstract read to make sure the source does establish what is attributed to it.

1. Beutel BG, Waseem M. Mallet Finger Injuries. StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf, NBK459373, updated 6 July 2025. Read the chapter — PMID 29083648. Source used for Doyle's classification, the numerical operative indications and the immobilisation protocol.
2. Khera B, Chang C, Bhat W. An overview of mallet finger injuries. Acta Biomed 2021;92(5):e2021246. DOI 10.23750/abm.v92i5.11731 — PMID 34738569
3. Sivakumar BS, Graham DJ, Ledgard JP, Lawson RD. Acute mallet finger injuries — a review. J Hand Surg Am 2023;48(3):283-291. DOI 10.1016/j.jhsa.2022.10.013 — PMID 36509592
4. Handoll HH, Vaghela MV. Interventions for treating mallet finger injuries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;2004(3):CD004574. DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD004574.pub2 — PMID 15266538
5. Lin JS, Samora JB. Surgical and nonsurgical management of mallet finger: a systematic review. J Hand Surg Am 2018;43(2):146-163.e2. DOI 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.10.004 — PMID 29174096
6. Witherow EJ, Peiris CL. Custom-made finger orthoses have fewer skin complications than prefabricated finger orthoses in the management of mallet injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015;96(10):1913-1923.e1. DOI 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.04.026 — PMID 26163944
7. O'Brien LJ, Bailey MJ. Single blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing dorsal aluminum and custom thermoplastic splints to stack splint for acute mallet finger. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011;92(2):191-198. DOI 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.10.035 — PMID 21272714
8. Gruber JS, Bot AG, Ring D. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing night splinting with no splinting after treatment of mallet finger. Hand (N Y) 2014;9(2):145-150. DOI 10.1007/s11552-013-9600-z — PMID 24839414
9. Garberman SF, Diao E, Peimer CA. Mallet finger: results of early versus delayed closed treatment. J Hand Surg Am 1994;19(5):850-852. DOI 10.1016/0363-5023(94)90200-3 — PMID 7806817
10. Thillemann JK, Thillemann TM, Kristensen PK, Foldager-Jensen AD, Munk B. Splinting versus extension-block pinning of bony mallet finger: a randomized clinical trial. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2020;45(6):574-581. DOI 10.1177/1753193420917567 — PMID 32338190
11. Zhu X, Chen X, Lv Y, Chen Y, Gao W, Yan H. The importance of active exercise in treatment of tendinous mallet finger: insights from a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Hand Surg Am 2025;50(11):1404.e1-1404.e10. DOI 10.1016/j.jhsa.2024.12.011 — PMID 39918530
12. Batıbay SG, Akgül T, Bayram S, Ayık Ö, Durmaz H. Conservative management equally effective to new suture anchor technique for acute mallet finger deformity: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Hand Ther 2018;31(4):429-436. DOI 10.1016/j.jht.2017.07.006 — PMID 28966061
13. Cavanaugh PK, Watkins C, Jones C, Maltenfort MG, Beredjiklian PK, Rivlin M. Effectiveness of Quickcast versus custom-fabricated thermoplastic orthosis immobilization for the treatment of mallet fingers: a randomized clinical trial. Hand (N Y) 2022;17(6):1090-1097. DOI 10.1177/1558944720988136 — PMID 33511868
14. Tocco S, Boccolari P, Landi A et al. Effectiveness of cast immobilization in comparison to the gold-standard self-removal orthotic intervention for closed mallet fingers: a randomized clinical trial. J Hand Ther 2013;26(3):191-200. DOI 10.1016/j.jht.2013.01.004 — PMID 23453367
15. Benabdallah O, Benabdallah R. Mallet finger caused by a villonodular synovitis: a case report and literature review. J Orthop Case Rep 2022;12(11):60-64. DOI 10.13107/jocr.2022.v12.i11.3416 — PMID 37013228
16. Aprilya D, Satria O, Vianney MM. Finger osteochondroma presenting as non-traumatic mallet finger in pediatric: a case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 2025;129:111105. DOI 10.1016/j.ijscr.2025.111105 — PMID 40073800
17. de Vena Franks PL, Lightfoot NJ. Mallet finger in an anaesthetist following tracheal intubation. Anaesth Rep 2020;8(2):127-130. DOI 10.1002/anr3.12073 — PMID 33210089