Dupuytren’s Disease of the Distal Interphalangeal Joint: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and Case Series

Background and Objectives: Dupuytren’s disease (DD) most commonly affects the palm and metacarpophalangeal/proximal interphalangeal joints; distal digital involvement at the distal interphalangeal joint (DIPJ) is uncommon and incompletely characterised. This systematic review summarises reported cases of DD involving the DIPJ, with or without proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) involvement, focusing on clinical patterns, management, and reported outcomes. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from database inception to July 2025 identified published case reports and case series describing DD confined to the DIPJ ± PIPJ of a single digit. Data were extracted on the demographics, digit involvement, anatomic features when reported, interventions, outcomes, complications, recurrence, and follow-up. Results: Nine studies reported 13 patients, published between 1991 and 2023. All patients were male (age range 25–79 years). The little finger predominated (10/13), followed by the ring (2/13) and index finger (1/13). When laterality was described, radial-sided distal cords were common. Surgical fasciectomy was performed in 11 cases and collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH) in 2 cases. Where postoperative correction was reported, outcomes were generally favourable; however, joint-specific range-of-motion outcomes and follow-up were inconsistently documented. Follow-up, when reported, ranged from 3 months to 3 years. One recurrence involving the PIPJ was reported 36 months after surgical management. No intraoperative neurovascular or tendon injuries were described, although adverse-event reporting was incomplete in some reports. Conclusions: Reported cases of DD involving the DIPJ most frequently involve the little finger in men. However, the available evidence is limited to a small number of selectively published case reports and series with incomplete outcome and follow-up reporting. These observations should therefore be interpreted cautiously, and comparative effectiveness or durability estimates cannot be established.