One hundred eleven thumb amputations: replantation vs revision

Risk Factors for Secondary Revision After Finger Amputations

BACKGROUND

Digit amputations are relatively simple and are often performed in the setting of trauma or infection. However, it is not uncommon for digit amputations to undergo secondary revision due to complications or patient dissatisfaction. Identifying factors associated with secondary revision may alter treatment strategy. We hypothesize that the secondary revision rate is affected by digit, initial level of amputation, and comorbidities.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients undergoing digit amputations in operating rooms at our institution from 2011 to 2017. Secondary revision amputations were defined as a separate return to the operating room following initial surgical amputation, excluding emergency room amputations. Patient demographics, comorbidities, level of amputation, and complications were collected.

RESULTS

In all, 278 patients were included with a total of 386 digit amputations and mean follow-up of 2.6 months. Three hundred twenty-six primary digit amputations were performed in 236 patients (group A). Sixty digits were secondarily revised in 42 patients (group B). The secondary revision rate was 17.8% for patients and 15.5% for digits. Patients with heart disease and diabetes mellitus were associated with secondary revision, with wound complications being the leading indication overall (73.8%). Medicare covered 52.4% of patients in group B versus 30.1% in group A (P = .005).

CONCLUSION

Risk factors for secondary revision include Medicare insurance, comorbidities, previous digit amputations, and initial amputation of either the index finger or the distal phalanx. These data may serve as a prediction model to aid surgical decision-making by identifying patients at risk of secondary revision amputation.

Surgical Management of Secondary Complex Microsurgical Reconstructions after Amputation and Severe Trauma Injuries: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION

Secondary complex microsurgical reconstructions after amputation and severe trauma injuries are often necessary to optimize functional outcomes.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

We reviewed eight patients who underwent extensive reconstruction after severe trauma. The details of secondary procedures are further described in the article. A literature search was performed using the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database for studies evaluating secondary procedures after complex reconstructions.

DISCUSSION

To date, the order and the need for performing secondary procedures have yet to be fully defined. The tissues encountered include skin, soft tissue, bone, nerve, joint, and tendon.

CONCLUSIONS

We described the use of a decision-theoretic approach to the secondary reconstruction. Treatment of a complex trauma should be measured by functional outcome.

Is Replantation Associated With Better Hand Function After Traumatic Hand Amputation Than After Revision Amputation?

BACKGROUND

Replantation is an established treatment for traumatic upper extremity amputation. Only a few studies, however, have assessed the patient-reported outcomes of replantation, and the findings of these studies have been conflicting.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is replantation associated with better hand function than revision amputation? (2) Is replantation associated with better health-related quality of life, less painful cold intolerance, and more pleasing hand esthetics than revision amputation after a traumatic hand amputation?

METHODS

In this retrospective, comparative study, we collected the details of all patients who sustained a traumatic upper extremity amputation and were treated at the study hospital. Between 2009 and 2019, we treated 2250 patients, and we considered all patients who sustained a traumatic amputation of two or more digital rays or a thumb as potentially eligible. Based on that, 15% (334 of 2250) were eligible; a further 2% (8 of 334) were excluded because of a subsequent new traumatic amputation or bilateral amputation, and another 22% (72 of 334) refused participation, leaving 76% (254 of 334) for analysis here. The primary outcome was the DASH score. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (EuroQOL-5D [EQ-5D-5L] Index), painful cold intolerance (the Cold Intolerance Symptom Severity score), and hand esthetics (the Michigan Hand Questionnaire aesthetic domain score). The minimum follow-up time for inclusion was 18 months. Patients were classified into two treatment groups: replantation (67% [171 of 254], including successful replantation in 84% [144 of 171] and partially successful replantation in 16% [27 of 171], in which some but not all of the replanted tissue survived), and revision (complete) amputation (33% [83 of 254], including primary revision amputation in 70% [58 of 83] and unsuccessful replantation followed by secondary amputation in 30% [25 of 83]). In this cohort, replantation was performed if possible, and the reason for choosing primary revision amputation over replantation was usually an amputated part that was too severely damaged (15% [39 of 254]) or was unattainable (2% [4 of 254]). Some patients (3% [8 of 254]) refused to undergo replantation, or their health status did not allow replantation surgery and postoperative rehabilitation (3% [7 of 254]). Gender, age (mean 48 ± 17 years in the replantation group versus 50 ± 23 years in the revision amputation group; p = 0.41), follow-up time (8 ± 4 years in the replantation group versus 7 ± 4 years in the revision amputation group; p = 0.18), amputation of the dominant hand, smoking, extent of tissue loss, or presence of arterial hypertension did not differ between the groups. Patients in the replantation group less frequently had diabetes mellitus (5% [8 of 171] versus 12% [10 of 83]; p = 0.03) and dyslipidemia (4% [7 of 171] versus 11% [9 of 83]; p = 0.04) than those in the revision group and more often had cut-type injuries (75% [129 of 171] versus 60% [50 of 83]; p = 0.02).

RESULTS

After controlling for potential confounding variables such as age, injury type, extent of tissue loss before treatment, and accident of the dominant hand, replantation was not associated with better DASH scores than revision amputation (OR 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.33]; p = 0.42). After controlling for potential cofounding variables, replantation was not associated with better EQ-5D-5L Index scores (OR 0.93 [95% CI 0.56 to 1.55]; p = 0.55), differences in Cold Intolerance Symptom Severity scores (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.51 to 1.44]; p = 0.79), or superior Michigan Hand Questionnaire esthetic domain scores (OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.43 to 1.26]; p = 0.26) compared with revision amputation.

CONCLUSION

Replantation surgery was conducted, if feasible, in a homogenous cohort of patients who underwent amputation. If the amputated tissue was too severely damaged or replantation surgery was unsuccessful, the treatment resulted in revision (complete) amputation, which was not associated with worse patient-reported outcomes than successful replantation. These results contradict the assumed benefits of replantation surgery and indicate the need for credible evidence to better guide the care of these patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Functional and patient-reported outcomes following single digit replantation: A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

Finger amputations can involve different levels of injury complexity, and the success of a finger replantation is further shaped by a variety of factors, including patient characteristics, surgical technique, and postoperative rehabilitation. These variables may interact in complex ways and contribute to heterogeneity that makes it challenging to guide management for individual patients. As such, this systematic review seeks review the outcomes of isolated single digit replantation and compare patient reported outcomes following revision amputation to guide decision making.

METHODS

The United States National Library of Medicine (PubMed/Medline), EMBASE and CINAHL were systematically searched to identify publications relevant to this systematic review. Related articles that were published from database inception to October 15, 2022 were extracted. The inclusion criteria consisted of English language clinical trials and observational studies reporting any functional or patient-reported outcome following single digit replantation.

RESULTS

From the initial 1050 titles and abstracts that were eligible for screening, six studies representing 550 single digit replantations were included. There were 162 replanted thumbs (162/550), as reported in three studies, and 388 replanted fingers (388/550), as reported in all six studies. Overall, all six studies concluded that non-thumb single digit replantation can provide satisfactory outcomes. Five studies suggested that single digit replantation proximal to flexor zone II can have reasonable outcomes in select cases. Two of the comparative studies (Zhu et al. [1], Chung et al. [2]) showed a statistically significant increase in MHQ score in the non-thumb replant group in comparison to the revision amputation group (87.6 versus 84.6 respectively).

CONCLUSION

When technically feasible, replantation is recommended, even in select index finger zone II amputations. Single digit replantation does not restore pre-injury hand function but does result in acceptable hand function when successful. Further study is needed to better inform risk-stratification of patients, and guide patient, and surgeon expectations for post-operative recovery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Functional outcome after digit replantation versus amputation

Background

The success of digit replantation is mainly based on survival rates. The functional outcome as well as the recovery of sensibility are essential parameters for judging the outcome after digit replantation but have been poorly assessed in previous studies.

Patients and methods

Forty-eight patients with 56 complete traumatic digit amputations occurring between 2008 and 2013 returned for a follow-up examination, the earliest being 6 months postoperatively. Each patient’s range of motion, fingertip-to-table distance, fingertip-to-palm distance, grip and pinch strengths, static two-point discrimination (2-PD), and Semmes–Weinstein monofilament (SWM) test level were assessed in order to compare functional outcome and recovery of sensibility between successful replantation (n = 19) and primary or secondary amputation (n = 37). Subjective assessments of the pain level and function of the upper extremity were performed using the numerical rating scale and the DASH score, respectively.

Results

Replanted digits achieved 58% of the median total range of motion of the corresponding uninjured digits. Grip and pinch strength were not significantly different after thumb or finger replantation or amputation. Recovery of sensibility was excellent after replantation, with a median static 2-PD of 5 mm and a reduction of pressure sensibility of two levels of the SWM test compared to the contralateral side. After amputation, the median static 2-PD was also very good, with a median value of 6 mm and a reduction of pressure sensibility of only one level according to the SWM test. There was significantly less pain after replantation at rest (p = 0.012) and under strain (p = 0.012) compared to patients after amputation. No significant differences were observed in the DASH score between the two groups.

Conclusion

Comparable functional results and sensory recovery but significantly less pain at rest and under strain can be expected after digit replantation when compared to digit amputation.

Level of evidence

IV.

Systematic Review of Replant Salvage and Cost Utility Analysis of Inpatient Monitoring After Digit Replantation

PURPOSE

Digit replantation is a high-stakes procedure that has been shown to be cost-effective, especially for multiple-digit replantation. However, it is associated with prolonged lengths of stay (LOS) for monitoring and attempts at salvage. The cost-effectiveness of prolonged inpatient stays presumes that this is necessary and inherent to the replantation. We hypothesized that prolonged monitoring of replanted digits, in the hope of possible salvage after primary failure, is cost-ineffective due to the low rates of vascular compromise and salvage after replantation.

METHODS

Using previously published data comparing quality adjusted life years lost after traumatic digit amputation versus digit replantation, we devised a cost utility model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of inpatient monitoring. To determine rates of vascular compromise and salvage after digit replantation, we performed a systematic review of the literature through MEDLINE and SCOPUS database searches to identify relevant articles on digital replantation since 1990. Cost-effectiveness was stratified based on the number of digits replanted.

RESULTS

Fewer than 9% of replanted digits both experience vascular compromise and are successfully salvaged. Adjusting for this, inpatient monitoring for single-digit and thumb replantation becomes cost-ineffective after 1 day of admission and monitoring for multiple-digit replantation becomes cost-ineffective after 2 days of admission.

CONCLUSIONS

In the United States, prolonged admissions for inpatient monitoring quickly become cost-ineffective, especially with relatively low rates of salvage. Surgeons should avoid extended hospitalizations for replant monitoring and should pursue enhanced recovery protocols for replantation, especially considering burgeoning health care costs in the United States.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic/Decision Analysis III.

Comparing digital replantation versus revision amputation patient reported outcomes for traumatic digital amputations of the hand: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Adults with traumatic digital amputation (TDA) of the hand may be managed with replantation or revision amputation. To date, there is no systematic review evaluating patient reported outcomes (PROs) comparing replantation versus revision amputation.

METHODS

Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed) were systematically searched in duplicate from inception until June 13, 2019 using Covidence software. Studies comparing replantation versus revision amputation outcomes were considered for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using Methodologic Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. Data were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis model using Revman software. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE).

RESULTS

Of 4350 studies identified, 12 retrospective cohort studies met inclusion criteria and compared TDA outcomes for replantation (n = 717; 82.9% male; mean age 40.3) versus revision amputation (n = 1046; 79.8% male; mean age 41.7). The overall replantation survival rate was 85.3%. The average MINORS score was 57% (13.75/24). Replantation of the thumb had a superior Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) score (+11.88, 95% CI [7.78-15.99], I² = 21%) compared with revision amputation. Replantation of single non-thumb digits had a superior MHQ score (+5.31, 95% CI [3.10-7.51], I² = 67%) and Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score (-5.16, 95% CI [-8.27 to -2.06], I² = 0%) compared with revision amputation. Most patients in the meta-analysis were from Asian populations (87.9%).

CONCLUSION

There is low-quality evidence that thumb replantation achieves superior PROs compared with revision amputation, which may be clinically important. Replantation of single non-thumb digits also yielded superior PROs, which is likely not clinically important and based on very low-quality evidence. Future studies with populations outside Asia are required to determine if PROs vary based on cultural differences toward digital amputation.

Long-term clinical results of 33 thumb replantations

INTRODUCTION

Thumb replantation following complete amputation is a relatively frequent and well-established surgical procedure. In literature many studies report a discrepancy between the objective measurements and the subjective satisfaction of the patients. Nowadays, evaluation of the patient long-term benefit obtained by replantation is uncertain. The aim of this study was to consider the long-term results of 33 thumb replantation procedures.

METHODS

The period considered is from January 1997 to December 2015, 33 subjects fulfilled the study inclusion criteria and were included in the study. We evaluated in each patient: ROM (performing Kapandji test), level and mechanism of amputation, force peak of three grips using Dexter dynamometer (five-handle, key, tri-digital grips), sensibility (using Disk-Criminator and aesthesiometers of Semmes-Weinstein) and subjective perception of disability (using DASH questionnaire).

RESULTS

All patients were males, 94% of them returned to their previous occupation. Average follow-up was 9±4 years. The prevalent mechanism of injury was a combined amputation in 58% of cases. Levels involved in more than half of patients were interphalangeal joints and proximal phalanxes. Ratios of strength recovery were: for the five-handle grip equal to 0.90±0.28 kg (p=0.63), 0.78±0.30 kg (p=0.64) for key grip and 0.75±0.32 kg (p=0.78) for tri-digital grip. Results for Kapandji test was 8±2 and for DASH test was 16±21. The protective tactile threshold was recovered in 49% of patients; S2PD test resulted positive in 54% and D2PD test in 39% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Results confirm and strengthen evidence of positive long-term functional outcomes of thumb replantation interventions.

Replantation for multiple digit amputations: A retrospective analysis of the clinical results

PURPOSE

Replantation of multidigit amputations is difficult to perform due to severe damage to the digits, prolonged operative time, and ischemia. This study aimed to report the clinical results of multidigit replantation.

METHODS

A retrospective case series of 34 digits belonging to 12 consecutive patients who underwent multidigit replantation was conducted. Patients with injury in at least one or more amputated fingers proximal to the insertion of the flexor digitorum superficialis tendon were included. The mean follow-up duration was 18.1 months. The number of amputated digits, mechanism and zone of injury, survival rate, and clinical outcomes, including the range of motion, grip strength, and sensory recovery, at the final follow-up were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean number of amputated digits per patient was 2.8. Complete survival was achieved in 27 of 31 digits (87.1%). The mean final percentage of total active motion of injured digits was 47.0%, and the mean percentage of grip strength was 45.9% of the contralateral uninjured side. The comparison between patients with two and three amputated digits showed that there was no significant difference in both survival rates and functional outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that both the survival rates and functional outcomes of multidigit replantation were as good as those of single-digit replantation, and there was no significant difference for outcomes between patients with two and three amputated digits. These results suggested that all multidigit replantations should be performed regardless of the number of injured digits or amputation zones.

Patient-Reported and Functional Outcomes After Revision Amputation and Replantation of Digit Amputations: The FRANCHISE Multicenter International Retrospective Cohort Study

Importance

Optimal treatment for traumatic digit amputation is unknown.

Objective

To compare long-term patient-reported and functional outcomes between patients treated with revision amputation or replantation for digit amputations.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective cohort study at 19 centers in the United States and Asia. Participants were 338 individuals 18 years or older with traumatic digit amputations with at least 1 year of follow-up after treatment. Participants were enrolled from August 1, 2016, to April 12, 2018.

Exposures

Revision amputation or replantation of traumatic digit amputations.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) score. Secondary outcomes were the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper-extremity module scores and functional outcomes.

Results

Among 338 patients who met all inclusion criteria, the mean (SD) age was 48.3 (16.4) years, and 85.0% were male. Adjusted aggregate comparison of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients with revision amputation and replantation revealed significantly better outcomes in the replantation cohort measured by the MHQ (5.93; 95% CI, 1.03-10.82; P = .02), DASH (-4.29; 95% CI, -8.45 to -0.12; P = .04), and PROMIS (3.44; 95% CI, 0.60 to 6.28; P = .02) scores. In subgroup analyses, DASH scores were significantly lower (6 vs 9, P = .05), indicating less disability and pain, and PROMIS scores higher (78 vs 75, P = .04) after replantation. Patients with 3 or more digits amputated (including thumb) had significantly better PROs after replantation than those managed with revision amputation (22 vs 42, P = .03 for DASH and 61 vs 36, P = .01 for PROMIS). Patients who underwent replantation after 3 or more digits amputated (excluding thumb) had higher MHQ scores, which did not reach statistical significance (69 vs 65, P = .06). Revision amputation in the subgroup with single-finger amputation distal to the proximal interphalangeal joint resulted in better 2-point discrimination (6 vs 8 mm, P = .05). Compared with revision amputation, replantation resulted in better 9-hole peg test times in the subgroup with 3 or more digits amputated (including thumb) (46 vs 81 seconds, P = .001), better Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test in the subgroup with 3 or more digits amputated (excluding thumb) (3 vs 21 g, P = .008), and better 3-point pinch test in the subgroup with 2 digits amputated (excluding thumb) (6.7 vs 5.6 kg, P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

When technically feasible, replantation is recommended in 3 or more digits amputated and in single-finger amputation (excluding thumb) distal to the proximal interphalangeal joint because it achieved better PROs, with long-term functional benefit. Thumb replantation is still recommended for its integral role in opposition.

Practical Tips to Improve Efficiency and Success in Upper Limb Replantation

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After reading this article, participant should be able to: 1. Describe the technique of replantation for very distal amputation of the digit and salvage procedures for venous drainage. 2. Perform single-digit replantation after viewing the videos. 3. Recognize appropriate cases for joint salvage techniques in periarticular amputation at each joint of the digit and wrist. 4. Outline the methods of flexor and extensor tendon reconstruction in an avulsed amputation of the digit or thumb. 5. Understand the order of digital replantation and transpositional replantation for a restoration of pinch or grip in multiple-digit amputation.

SUMMARY

This article provides practical tips and caveats for the latest replantation surgical techniques for digit, hand, and upper extremity amputation. Four videos, clinical photographs, and drawings highlight important points of operative technique and outcomes of replantation.

Assessment of Tree-Based Statistical Learning to Estimate Optimal Personalized Treatment Decision Rules for Traumatic Finger Amputations

IMPORTANCE

Optimal treatment for traumatic finger amputation is unknown to date.

OBJECTIVE

To use statistical learning methods to estimate evidence-based treatment assignment rules to enhance long-term functional and patient-reported outcomes in patients after traumatic amputation of fingers distal to the metacarpophalangeal joint.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This decision analytical model used data from a retrospective cohort study of 338 consenting adult patients who underwent revision amputation or replantation at 19 centers in the United States and Asia from August 1, 2016, to April 12, 2018. Of those, data on 185 patients were included in the primary analysis.

EXPOSURES

Treatment with revision amputation or replantation.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcome measures were hand strength, dexterity, hand-related quality of life, and pain. A tree-based statistical learning method was used to derive clinical decision rules for treatment of traumatic finger amputation.

RESULTS

Among 185 study participants (mean [SD] age, 45 [16] years; 156 [84%] male), the median number of fingers amputated per patient was 1 (range, 1-5); 115 amputations (62%) were distal to the proximal interphalangeal joint, and 110 (60%) affected the nondominant hand. On the basis of the tree-based statistical learning estimates, to maximize hand dexterity or to minimize patient-reported pain, replantation was found to be the best strategy. To maximize hand strength, revision amputation was the best strategy for patients with a single-finger amputation but replantation was preferred for all other injury patterns. To maximize patient-reported quality of life, revision amputation was the best approach for patients with dominant hand injuries, and replantation was the best strategy for patients with nondominant hand injuries.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that the approach to treating traumatic finger amputations varies based on the patient's injury characteristics and functional needs.

Cost-effectiveness of Finger Replantation Compared With Revision Amputation

IMPORTANCE

Traumatic digit amputation is the most common type of amputation injury, but the cost-effectiveness of its treatments is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of finger replantation compared with revision amputation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation was conducted using data from the Finger Replantation and Amputation Challenges in Assessing Impairment, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness (FRANCHISE), a retrospective, multicenter cohort study at 19 centers in the United States and Asia that enrolled participants from August 1, 2016, to April 12, 2018. Model variables were based on the FRANCHISE database, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and published literature. A total of 257 participants with unilateral traumatic finger amputations treated with revision amputation or replantation distal to the metacarpophalangeal joint and at least 1 year of follow-up after treatment were included in the analysis.

EXPOSURES

Revision amputation or replantation of traumatic finger amputations.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Main outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total costs (in US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY was used to assess cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Of the 257 study participants (mean [SD] age, 46.7 [15.9] years; 221 [86.0%] male), 178 underwent finger replantation and 79 underwent revision amputation. In a base case of a 46.7-year-old patient, replantation was associated with QALY gains of 0.30 (95% credible interval [CrI], -0.72 to 1.38) for single-finger (not thumb), 0.39 (95% CrI, -1.00 to 1.90) for thumb, 1.69 (95% CrI, -0.13 to 3.76) for multifinger excluding thumb, and 1.27 (95% CrI, -2.21 to 5.04) for multifinger including thumb injury patterns. Corresponding ICERs for replantation compared with revision amputation were $99 157 per QALY for single-finger (not thumb), $66 278 per QALY for thumb, $18 388 per QALY for multifinger excluding thumb, and $21 528 per QALY for multifinger including thumb injury patterns. Sensitivity analysis revealed that age at time of injury, life expectancy, postinjury utility, wages, and time off work for recovery had the strongest associations with cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed the following chances of replantation being cost-effective: 47% in single-finger (not thumb), 52% in thumb, 78% in multifinger excluding thumb, and 64% in multifinger including thumb injury patterns.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

With proper patient selection, replantation of all finger amputation patterns, whether single-finger or multifinger injuries, may be cost-effective compared with revision amputation. Multifinger replantations had a higher probability of being cost-effective than single-finger replantations. Cost-effectiveness may depend on injury pattern and patient factors and thus appears to be important for consideration when patients and surgeons are deciding whether to replant or amputate.

Hand Replantations Following Complete Amputations at the Wrist Joint: First Experiences in Hanoi, Vietnam

Five completely amputated hands at the level of the wrist joint were replanted. The five patients were all men, ranging from 19 to 31 years and the amputations were all the result of knife injuries. All the revascularizations were successful. Secondary tenolysis was required in one case. Postoperative functional results compared to the uninjured hand were evaluated according to five main criteria: (1) the patient’s overall satisfaction with the hand; (2) recovery of flexor and extensor function of the thumb and fingers; (3) recovery of thumb opposition; (4) recovery of sensitivity in the median and ulnar nerve distributions; (5) ability of the surviving hand to perform daily tasks. The results showed that, although the replanted hands were never functionally as good as the contralateral hand, the patients were able to use them satisfactorily for activities of daily living. Our results demonstrate that replantation following complete amputation at the wrist joint level as a result of a sharp injury is extremely worthwhile and has excellent potential for functional recovery.

Reoperation After Combined Injury of the Index Finger: Repair Versus Immediate Amputation

PURPOSE

To identify factors associated with unplanned reoperation of severely injured index fingers and to address the number of amputations after initial repair.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we included all patients older than 18 years of age who had repair or immediate amputation for combined index finger injury at 2 level I trauma centers and 1 community hospital tied to a level I trauma center between January 2004 and February 2014. Twelve patients were excluded because of inadequate follow-up. Bivariate and multivariable analyses sought factors associated with unplanned reoperation after repair and immediate amputation.

RESULTS

Among 114 patients with combined injury, 75 were treated with repair and 39 with immediate amputation. A total of 41 patients had an unplanned reoperation, 33 after repair (44%) and 8 after immediate amputation (21%). In multivariable analysis, patients who had a reoperation for fingers other than the index finger were at risk for unplanned reoperation after repair. Women were more likely to have an unplanned reoperation than men, and patients who had a ray amputation were at risk for unplanned reoperation after immediate amputation. Six patients (18%) had amputation after initial repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons may counsel patients that they are twice as likely to have an unplanned reoperation after a repair for combined injury of the index finger compared with an immediate amputation. Unplanned reoperations were more common among patients with injuries involving multiple fingers. Effective shared decision making is particularly important in this setting given that 1 in 5 repaired index fingers were eventually amputated.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Replantation of the upper extremity: current concepts

Replantation is the process of reattaching amputated parts. Relative indications for replantation in the upper extremity include amputation of the thumb or multiple digits as well as amputations proximal to zone II and pediatric finger amputations at any level. Preoperatively, the part should be sealed in a bag and placed on ice; maximum ischemia times are approximately 12 hours of warm and 24 hours of cold time for digits, with shorter times tolerated for amputations at more proximal levels. With multiple digit involvement, an assembly line approach is used in the operating room. Postoperatively, close attention must be paid to detect thrombosis because secondary ischemia times are shorter. Success rates vary; survival is predicted in part by the mechanism of injury, with sharp cut injuries having better outcomes. There is no consensus on appropriate postoperative anticoagulation, the number of vessels that must be anastomosed, or whether replantations should be centralized or performed in every hospital.

Economic analysis of revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis to compare revision amputation and replantation treatment of finger amputation injuries across a spectrum of injury scenarios.

METHODS

The study was conducted from the societal perspective. Decision tree models were created for the reference case (two-finger amputation injury) and seven additional injury scenarios for comparison. Inputs included cost, quality of life, and probability of each health state. A Web-based time trade-off survey was created to determine quality-adjusted life-years for health states; 685 nationally representative adult community members were invited to participate in the survey. Overall cost and quality-adjusted life-years for revision amputation and replantation were calculated for each decision tree. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated if a treatment was more costly but more effective.

RESULTS

The authors had a 64 percent response rate (n = 437). Replantation treatment had greater costs and quality-adjusted life-years compared with revision amputation in all injury scenarios. Replantation of single-digit injuries had the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($136,400 per quality-adjusted life-year gained). Replantation of three- and four-digit amputation injuries had relatively low cost-to-benefit ratios ($27,100 and $23,800 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Replantation for distal thumb amputation had a relatively low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($26,300 per quality-adjusted life-year) compared with replantation of nonthumb distal amputations ($60,200 per quality-adjusted life-year).

CONCLUSIONS

The relative cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained with replantation treatment varied greatly among the injury scenarios. Situations in which indications for replantation are debated had higher cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This study highlights variability in value for replantation among different injury scenarios.

Functional and subjective results of 20 thumb replantations

The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse the results of 20 thumb replantations with special and exhaustive attention on functional outcomes. Twenty patients with traumatic thumb amputation were enrolled in the study. Range of motion, grip strength, sensory recovery, and subjective perception of overall hand function recovery were measured. The average age at the time of surgery was 35 years (range, 13-73 years). The mean follow-up was 3.25 years (range, 1.9-10.25 years). The long-term results of thumb replantation confirmed satisfactory outcomes in terms of general upper limb function, handgrip and pinch strength, and social and work reintegration. Sensory recovery remained unsatisfactory despite the fact that we did not need to perform any kind of revision surgery as a consequence of inadequate thumb sensibility. For the first time in the existing literature, no functional parameter that contributes to the assessment of the function of replanted thumbs has been excluded. We resume in the same study the analysis of all functional parameters that are useful to define results of thumb replantation.

Surgical management for malignant tumors of the thumb

BACKGROUND

Malignant tumors of the thumb can be treated surgically with either wide local excision with reconstruction or amputation. Local excision of tumors in the thumb and hand often requires closer resection margin than at other sites, and there is also a need for tissue transfer from a donor site for reconstruction. Primary thumb amputation allows local tumor control while avoiding donor-site morbidity, but comes at great functional cost. We conducted this retrospective case review to assess the outcomes of thumb-sparing wide excisions and primary thumb amputations for malignant thumb tumors.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 23 patients who were surgically treated for malignant tumors of the thumb at our center from 1996 to 2005. We reviewed patient demographics, tumor pathology, extent of resection, postoperative margin status, adjuvant therapy, recurrence, and survival. Functional outcomes were scored using the Muscular Skeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) rating system.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients underwent definitive surgery: 14 thumb-sparing wide excisions and 9 amputations (five at the interphalangeal joint, three at the metacarpophalangeal joint, and one at the forearm). Median follow-up was 58 months (range, 5-156 months). All patients had negative margins. One patient developed a local tumor recurrence (following below-elbow amputation for a soft tissue sarcoma) while three patients developed distant metastases and died from their disease (two patients had melanomas and one had a soft tissue sarcoma). The median MSTS functional score was 28 (IQR, 27-29) for the entire cohort. Two patients that underwent amputation at the metcarpophalangeal joint without reconstruction had the lowest scores of 11 and 17.

CONCLUSION

There was a low incidence of local recurrence and distant metastasis in this study, and these events appeared to be related to the underlying disease rather than the surgery performed. Thumb-sparing wide excision and amputation at the interphalangeal joint both give acceptable functional outcomes, though reconstruction should be strongly considered for patients undergoing amputation at the metacarpophalangeal joint.

Selected outcomes of thumb replantation after isolated thumb amputation injury

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess thumb survival, pinch strength, grip strength, and need for secondary surgery in patients undergoing thumb replantation after isolated thumb amputation injury.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 52 consecutive isolated thumb replantations performed over a 4.5-year period. Charts were reviewed for mechanism of injury, level of amputation, and surgical technique. Primary outcomes of interest included survival and secondary surgery (eg, tenolysis, neurolysis) rates. Functional outcome was assessed by pinch and grip strengths after a mean follow-up period of 10 months from the initial injury.

RESULTS

The overall thumb survival rate was 92% (48 of 52). One hundred percent of Zone I injuries (13 of 13), 94% of zone II injuries (29 of 31), and 75% of zone III injuries (6 of 8) survived; overall survival was 94% in sharp injuries (32 of 34), 89% in avulsion injuries (8 of 9), and 89% in crush injuries (8 of 9). Secondary surgery was performed in 18 patients with increasing need across the 3 zones (0%, 42%, and 63%, respectively; p for trend = .002). Pinch and grip strengths of 17 patients after an average follow-up period of 10 months were significantly worse after crush/avulsion injuries (p = .007 and .07, respectively) and injuries requiring joint intervention (p = .004 and .02, respectively); grip strength was also found to be negatively associated with increasing zone of injury.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study shows that a high rate of survival can be achieved after thumb replantation using current techniques. In addition, the need for secondary surgery is strongly related to zone of injury, with zone I injuries requiring the least amount of secondary surgery. Finally, pinch and grip strengths may be worse after crush or avulsion injuries and injuries requiring joint intervention.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Great toe transplant versus thumb replant for isolated thumb amputation: critical analysis of functional outcome

BACKGROUND

Thumb replantation following thumb amputation is the standard of care. When replantation is impossible, microneurovascular great toe transplantation is a well-established option.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted to evaluate functional outcome following isolated thumb replantation or great toe transplantation for thumb reconstruction. From 1974 to 1993, 384 thumb amputations were treated and 110 great toe-to-thumb transplantations were performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients with isolated thumb amputation had an 85% survival rate. Failed replants usually resulted from crushing or avulsing injuries. Function of replanted thumbs was better in sharp compared with crush/avulsion injuries. Forty-three isolated thumb reconstructions had a 93% success rate. Function was comparable with thumb replants from sharp injuries. Interphalangeal motion was significantly better in great toe transplants than in replanted thumbs of the crush/avulsion type.

CONCLUSIONS

Amputated thumbs should be replanted. When replantation is not possible or unsuccessful, a transplanted great toe functions as well as, or better than, a replanted thumb.

Immediate reconstruction of a nonreplantable thumb amputation by great toe transfer

BACKGROUND

When replantation of an avulsed/amputated thumb is not feasible, toe-to-hand transfer may be considered as a reconstructive option in appropriately chosen patients. Although selection criteria are purposefully restrictive, immediate one-stage transfer, as opposed to a delayed procedure, provides many advantages. Primary reconstruction reduces hospitalization and operative and recovery time. It also may expedite return of function and allow patients to return to work sooner. The ability of the patient to undergo extensive microvascular reconstruction at the time of injury, the psychological preparation required, and the need to understand potential risks are important factors to consider.

METHODS

In the past 5 years, six patients suffering thumb amputation underwent immediate great toe-to-hand transfer. The overall results of these thumb reconstructions were evaluated retrospectively with regard to function, outcome, length of stay, complications (e.g., infection, contracture, reexploration), and time to return to work/normal activity. The authors calculated objective and subjective scores with which to quantify patient satisfaction and clinical success.

RESULTS

All of the authors' patients were laborers who suffered work-related avulsion-amputations. No complications were reported during initial hospitalization, lasting an average of 12 days. Donor-site morbidity was minimal.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that thumb reconstruction using great toe transfer can be safely and reliably performed during the initial presentation in selected patients. The economic and therapeutic advantages should be weighed against the risks associated with this approach when evaluating thumb avulsion-amputations.

Cold hypersensitivity 6 to 10 years after replantation or revascularisation of fingers: consequences for work and leisure activities

We investigated cold hypersensitivity and activity in 81 adults (male/female 76/5), 6 to 10 years after finger replantation/revascularisation (mean age at injury 43 (SD 15) years). Questionnaires included the McCabe Cold Sensitivity Severity Scale, Potential Work-Exposure Scale and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score. Eighty per cent of the respondents were cold hypersensitive; 20% were severely or extremely cold hypersensitive. Of the 74 patients employed at injury, 7% had changed work and 4% were not working due to cold hypersensitivity. The median score for cold exposure at work at follow-up was 153 (scale 0-300). The correlation between cold sensitivity and DASH work was low. One-third of the respondents experienced limitations in their leisure activities because of cold complaints. Long-term cold sensitivity was mild or moderate for most patients. Many cold hypersensitive patients managed to continue to work even under cold conditions and cold hypersensitivity was a greater problem in leisure activities.

Long-term functional and subjective results of thumb replantation

The aim of this follow-up study was to evaluate the functional and subjective results after thumb replantation. Twenty-four patients with replantation of the thumb, performed during the period 1992-1997, were reexamined after 6.5 years (range, 4.2-9.1 years post-injury). In 10 cases the amputations were isolated, 14 amputations were combined with other injuries of the hand, 15 amputations resulted from crush/avulsion injuries, and 9 amputations were sharp. Range of motion, grip strength, cutaneous sensibility, and upper-extremity functioning using the DASH questionnaire were determined. A correlation analysis with important variables was performed. Average range-of-motion in the metacarpophalangeal joint was 44 degrees (+/-24.2) and in the interphalangeal joint was 12 degrees (+/-8.4). Grip-strength of the injured hand was 70% (+/-31.4) and pinch strength was 68% (+/-28.7) in comparison to the non-injured hand. DASH-scores correlated with grip-strength, pinch-strength, and cutaneous sensation but no correlation was found between DASH and the level of amputation. Functional results were independent of amputation levels and patient age. Although the results of cutaneous sensibility were only moderate, patients were able to use their thumb to perform work and daily living activities. The majority of patients had returned to their previous occupation.

Thumb amputations from team roping

BACKGROUND

Thumb injuries during team roping have elements of both avulsion and crush, resulting in a poor prognosis for replantation success.

PURPOSE

To review 19 cases of thumb amputation from team roping at our institution since 1983.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

Cases were included in the study only if a microvascular repair of artery and vein was needed for the thumb to survive. Vein grafts were used to span the damaged vessel segment. Of the 19 thumb amputation cases, 15 attempts were made to replant the thumb. In the remaining four cases, patients had bone shortening and primary closure. The force of injury was calculated based on mechanism.

RESULTS

Of the 15 attempts at replantation, only 5 (33%) were successful, despite meticulous technique. One patient subsequently had an emergency toe-to-thumb transfer after an unsuccessful replant, and the remaining nine underwent amputation. Nine of the 10 patients with failed replants had poor flow intraoperatively. In the group of patients younger than 15, the success was 3 of 5 (60%) and in the group 15 years or older the success was 2 of 10 attempts (20%.) Follow-up was available in 13 of the 15 cases of replanted thumbs.

CONCLUSIONS

All patients were subjectively satisfied with their results, and all patients with successful replants and seven patients with no thumb returned to rodeo. Biomechanical analysis showed a huge amount of force and pressure, several times larger than that of ring avulsion injury, results when a steer pulls on the thumb.

Secondary procedures following mutilating hand injuries

Mutilating hand injuries result in injury to multiple anatomic structures, which increases the possibility that secondary procedures or staged reconstruction will be necessary. Secondary procedures often are required to provide stable wound coverage, restore sensation, provide bony stability, increase range of motion, or allow prehension, all of which are performed to improve hand function. The patient, the surgeon, and the therapist must all work together to achieve the best functional result following a severe mutilating hand injury.

Digital replantation including postoperative care

Digital replantation first became a reality in the 1960s with the advent of microsurgical techniques. Indications for replantation have evolved over the ensuing years and currently include 1) thumb amputations, 2) multiple digit amputations, and 3) amputations in children. Crush and avulsion injuries and amputations of a single digit proximal to the flexor digitorum superficialis insertion remain relative contraindications. Good communication between the replantation center microsurgeon and the referring physician is paramount to achieving appropriate and timely referrals and correct transport of amputated parts. Communication with patients is also important: possible candidates for replantation must be informed of the likely outcomes of replantation and revision amputation procedures, and the different postoperative regimens for each. For patients who choose revision amputation or whose replants do not survive, there are a variety of reconstructive options available, if necessary, such as toe-to-hand transfer. The techniques to perform such elective free tissue transfers have been perfected during the last 30 years largely from experience gained through digital replantation.

Rehabilitation process and functional results of patients with amputated fingers

Digit amputation is a physical and psychological trauma that can influence the daily living of a person. The rehabilitation of patients with digit amputation is a complex process and should take into consideration all influencing factors, such as the functional, emotional, social, and professional profile of the patient. This study was conducted to evaluate the functional level of patients with amputated fingers and to understand the factors that influence their rehabilitation. Fifty patients (42 male and 8 female with an age ranging from 7 to 84 years) who had digit amputation(s) between January of 1990 and December of 1998 at the level of the metacarpus or distal to it and who had at least 6 months of follow-up were examined. The patients were divided into three different study groups: patients with distal amputation were compared with patients who had proximal amputation, patients with one finger amputation were compared with patients who had multiple finger amputations, and patients who suffered finger amputations caused by work-related accidents were compared with those who suffered amputations caused by other incidents. In addition, the time lapse from the amputation was checked as an influencing factor for different functional levels. The results showed that patients with distal amputation reached a higher motor and sensory functional level than patients with proximal amputation. Patients with one-finger amputation reached higher motor, sensory, and activities of daily living functional levels than patients with multiple amputations, and the level of motor and sensory function of patients with finger amputations caused by work-related accidents was lower than that of patients who suffered amputations in other incidents. Time was proven to be an important factor in the process of motor and emotional recovery.

Double mini-flaps from fingers for reconstruction of distal portion of thumb

Amputation of distal portion of the thumb is a frequent trauma and more emphasis should be placed on this. Reconstruction of the distal thumb with two neurovascular mini-flaps harvested from the ulnar and radial sides of the index and middle fingers, respectively was carried out in five patients. The results showed that the patients were satisfied cosmetically and thumb length was maintained; grip strength increased with time though sensory misreference required further rehabilitation.

Secondary surgery after digit replantation: its incidence and sequence

This article discusses the incidence and sequence of secondary procedures following digital replantation. In published series addressing this topic, the overall frequency of postreplantation surgery ranged from 2.9-93.2%. Tendon procedures accounted for 47.2% of cases, and comprised the leading type of secondary operations. Tendon procedures were followed by joint procedures (18.9%), skeletal stabilization (12%), skin coverage (11.4%), nerve reconstruction (8.9%), and late amputation (1.6%). The number of secondary procedures per patient averaged from 1-4.5, depending on prioritization of different procedures. The order of restoration procedures should be as follows: supple skin coverage, skeletal stability, and protective and proprioceptive sensation. Joint reconstruction follows these procedures, which in turn is followed by tendon reconstruction.

Replantation

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the indications and contraindications for extremity replantation. 2. Outline the sequence and technique of replantation. 3. Identify potential complications of replantation and recognize treatment options. 4. Assess the results of replantation in terms of function and costs versus benefits.

Functional results of 46 thumb replantations and revascularisations

The functional results of 46 patients with isolated thumb replantations and revascularisations were evaluated in the outpatient clinic. The modified system for evaluation of reattached parts proposed by Burton was used. The system for functional evaluation of hands consisted of three major fields: socioeconomic factors, objective assessment and subjective assessment. Certain potential factors which might have influenced the functional results were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis's and Wilcoxon's sum of ranks tests. Level of amputation (P < 0.01) and mechanism of amputation (P < 0.05) significantly influenced the functional result. Age of the patients and severity of amputation (total-subtotal) had no effect on the late results. Thirty-nine patients (85%) had the same employment as before injury. All the patients had economically suitable employment and 31 patients (67%) had the same manual work as before the injury. All but 8 patients experienced cold intolerance. Satisfaction with aesthetic appearance of injured hand differed between sexes: women not being pleased with the sight of their hands in 37% (3/8) and men in 8% (3/38). All patients but one would have the operation again.

An instrument evaluation framework: description and application to assessments of hand function

An instrument evaluation framework outlining a process for selecting measurement instruments for use in hand therapy is presented. Each section of the framework--including clinical utility, standardization, purpose, psychometric properties, and patient's perspective--is explained in detail. The framework is applied to four hand function assessments that measure functional limitation, specifically, the Test Evaluant les Membres Supèrieurs des Personnes Agèes (Upper Extremity Performance Evaluation Test for the Elderly; TEMPA), the Jebsen Test of Hand Function, the Smith Hand Function Test, and the Quantitative Test of Upper Extremity Function. The therapists who developed and applied the framework selected the TEMPA as the most appropriate measure for their setting. This framework will assist hand therapists in justifying the selection of measurement instruments and will facilitate a consistent, comprehensive, and critical evaluation approach.

Amputations of the fingers and hand: indications for replantation

With hand and digital replantation now widely available in most urban settings, initial treating physicians must be aware of the factors that may influence outcome, so that informed decisions can be made regarding referral for replantation and appropriate early treatment. The author outlines the factors pertaining to amputations of the fingers and hand, provides general guidelines for indications for and contraindications to replantation, and discusses reported results.

Replantation-revascularization and primary amputation in major hand injuries. Resources spent on treatment and the indirect costs of sick leave in Sweden

Thirty consecutive patients with amputation or devascularizing injuries of the thumb or two or more fingers proximal to the PIP joint were reviewed. Replantation or revascularization had been done in 27 patients, in 24 successfully. Three patients had primary amputation. The distribution of calculable costs was dominated by those for sick leave (49%), operation (26%) and ward costs (20%). Out-patient care, physiotherapy and travel together constituted only 6%. The cost of a successful replantation was equal to 1.6 times the mean annual salary of these patients and that of primary amputation about half as much. Mobility, power and performance of a standardized grip test were better for the successfully replanted or revascularized patients. Subjective evaluation of 23 parameters of function, cosmesis and quality of life did not disclose any differences. All patients except three had returned to their original work within 2 years.

Complete versus incomplete nonviable amputations of the thumb. Comparison of the survival rate and functional results

81 patients with 84 complete (55) or incomplete (29) nonviable amputations of the thumb were studied to compare the survival rate and functional results between the two groups. 3 of these patients had bilateral thumb amputations. Of the 55 completely amputated thumbs, 43 survived (78 percent), while of the 29 incomplete nonviable amputations, 25 were salvaged (86 percent). Excluding patients with an amputation at the level of or distal to the interphalangeal (IP) joint, motion at the IP joint which did not exceed 40 degrees flexion even when a secondary procedure was done, did not show a statistical difference between the 2 groups. Average two-point discrimination was 14 mm for patients with complete amputations and 11 mm for patients with incomplete nonviable amputations. We conclude that incomplete nonviable amputations of the thumb are associated with a higher survival rate and better sensibility than complete thumb amputations, while motion at the IP joint does not differ between the two groups of patients.