Replantation vs revision amputation in single digit zone II amputations

Zone I Revision Finger Amputations Performed in the Emergency Department Compared With Those Performed in the Operating Room

Finger amputations are commonly encountered. These may be revised in the emergency department (ED) or the operating room (OR). Previous studies have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness associated with procedures performed in the ED. Patient outcomes have not been described. We retrospectively reviewed patients who presented to our level 1 trauma center with a traumatic partial or complete finger amputation through flexor tendon zone I. All were treated with revision amputation performed in either the ED or the OR between January 2012 and December 2017. A total of 172 patient charts were included. Ninety-three of the revision amputations were performed in the ED, while 79 were performed in the OR. There was no difference in age, race, sex, having a manual labor job, medical comorbidities, or mechanism of injury between the groups. Compared with procedures performed in the ED, procedures performed in the OR had a higher rate of delayed healing, a longer stay in the hospital, and a higher referral to therapy postoperatively. Length of follow-up and number of follow-up visits were not statistically different based on location of procedure. There was no difference in post-procedural infection rate or need for revision procedure between the groups. Our data support the efficacy of performing revision amputation procedures in the ED. Recorded patient complications and subsequent treatment after revision amputations performed in the ED vs the OR were comparable. Those performed in the ED potentially decrease the burden placed on the patient and the health care system. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):152-156.].

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.

Concurrent validity study of QuickDASH with respect to DASH in patients with traumatic upper extremity amputation

BACKGROUND

The Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure (DASH) is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for many upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. In patients with severe traumatic conditions, limited evidence exists regarding the equivalence between DASH and its shortened version, QuickDASH, which is more feasible in clinical practice. The rationale of this study was to analyze the concurrent validity of QuickDASH with respect to DASH in patients with traumatic upper extremity amputation.

METHODS

This study is based on a consecutive cohort of traumatic upper extremity amputation patients treated with replantation or revision (completion) amputation at Tampere University Hospital between 2009 and 2019. We estimated the concurrent validity of QuickDASH with respect to DASH by correlation coefficients, mean score differences, Bland-Altman plots, and distribution density. Additionally, we assessed internal reliability with Cronbach's alpha coefficients and item-total correlations.

RESULTS

We found a very strong linear correlation between DASH and QuickDASH scores (r = 0.97 [CI 95% 0.97-0.98], p < 0.001). The mean difference between DASH and QuickDASH was minor (MD = -1, SD 4 [CI95% from -1 to 0] p = 0.02). The mean sub-score for the activity domain was higher for QuickDASH than DASH (MD = -3 [CI95% from -4 to -3] p < 0.000) and lower for the symptom domain (MD = 7 [CI95% from 6 to 9] p < 0.000). The Bland and Altman plot showed good agreement between DASH and QuickDASH scores, but there was measurement error in QuickDASH with high scores (r = -0.20, [CI95% from -0.31 to -0.09], p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

QuickDASH demonstrates higher total scores than the full DASH and emphasizes rating of activity over symptoms. Still, on average the differences in total scores are likely less than the MCID of DASH, and consequently, this study shows that QuickDASH can be recommended instead of the full DASH when assessing a traumatic condition.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered.

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.

Single Digit Index Finger Amputation-To Replant or Not?

Background: Single index finger replantation is often listed as a contraindication due to its hindrance of hand function when replanted. Recent studies demonstrate comparable subjective and global functional outcomes for index flexor zone II finger replants versus revision amputations. We therefore sought to identify current opinions of plastic surgery trainees and staff treating single index finger zone II amputations including influential patient and injury characteristics. Methods: With the approval of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgery, a 17-question survey was sent via email to all listed members on 3 separate occasions. Participation was voluntary and survey responses were compiled and analyzed using SPSS statistical software. Results: Survey response rate was 38.5%. When asked whether the surgeon would replant a single index digit, flexor zone II, sharp amputation, 55.3% of respondents chose "yes," while 44.7% responded "no." Staff (51.5%) were less likely to replant a single index digit amputation. Likelihood of replant dropped substantially in crush (12.4%) and avulsion (17.1%) injury. Smoking was the most likely patient characteristic to change a surgeon's decision (61.9%). Poor range of motion (77.5%) and patient satisfaction (72.5%) were the most frequently listed reasons not to replant. Conclusion: Among Canadian plastic surgeons, there exists disagreement in how single index flexor zone II amputations should be managed. In review of the literature, these notions and previous teaching around replants highlight many inherent surgeon biases with regard to the merit and value of single digit replantation.

Outcomes of single digit replantation for amputation proximal to the flexor digitorum superficialis insertion: A systematic review with meta‐analysis

BACKGROUND

A single digit amputated proximal to the flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) insertion is a relative contraindication to replantation. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review on replantation of these injuries to synthesize best available evidence on outcomes.

METHODS

This review was registered in PROSPERO under registration number CRD42021277305. A MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases search yielded 1536 studies. Primary clinical studies on single digit replantation and functional outcome with at least 10 cases were included. Data on revision amputation and replantation distal to the FDS were collected as comparators. Data extracted included demographics, type of digit, level of injury, secondary surgeries, duration of sick leave, survival, function, and patient-reported outcomes. All studies were assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I) tool and data synthesis was completed using RevMan and Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

Six studies representing 182 replanted single digits that were amputated proximal to the FDS insertion were included. The average PIPJ motion of replanted single digits was 50° in those amputated proximal to the FDS insertion compared to 82.5 in those amputated distal to the FDS. The average Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) score was 84.78 in replantation group versus 76.81 in the amputation group which was statistically significant (p < .00001). Mean Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (DASH) score was 12 in replantation group compared to 18.5 in amputation group, however this was not statistically significant (p = .17).

CONCLUSION

Few studies exist on outcomes of single digit replantations proximal to FDS insertion. Although range of motion is inferior in the replant group, this has increased since initial studies were performed, and patient satisfaction and patient reported outcomes are high. This is promising evidence for achieving reasonable outcomes in replantation of single digits amputated proximal to the FDS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 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.

A Global View of Digital Replantation and Revascularization

Survival rates of digital replantation vary in different regions and countries, and Asian surgeons see more challenging cases and have developed some unique methods. Replantation of multiple digits in one or both hands can follow a structure-by-structure method or a digit-by-digit method. For replanting all 10 digits, 3 or 4 teams should be organized. Flow-through flaps, often venous flaps, can be taken from the distal forearm or lower extremity to repair defects of soft tissues and arteries. A pedicled digital artery flap from the adjacent digit can also repair tissue defects and supply blood to the replanted digit.

Successful Digital Revascularization in a Patient With Factor V Leiden Mutation

Replantation/revascularization involves microsurgical anastomosis of the digital arteries and veins, which are often 2 mm or less in diameter. Thrombosis is a known risk of revascularization that ultimately can lead to ischemic digital loss. Factor V Leiden mutation is present in 3% to 8% of the population and results in generalized hypercoagulability. We present the case of a single-digit revascularization that was successful following vein grafting in a patient with factor V Leiden mutation.

Reporting Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Digital Replantation: A Systematic Review

Introduction  There is a lack of consensus on what the critical outcomes in replantation are and how best to measure them. This review aims to identify all reported outcomes and respective outcome measures used in digital replantation. Materials and Methods  Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and single-arm observational studies of adults undergoing replantation with at least one well-described outcome or outcome measure were identified. Primary outcomes were classified into six domains, and outcome measures were classified into eight domains. The clinimetric properties were identified and reported. A total of 56 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Results  In total, 29 continuous and 29 categorical outcomes were identified, and 87 scales and instruments were identified. The most frequently used outcomes were survival of replanted digit, sensation, and time in hospital. Outcomes and measures were most variable in domains of viability, quality of life, and motor function. Only eight measures used across these domains were validated and proven reliable. Conclusion  Lack of consensus creates an obstacle to reporting, understanding, and comparing the effectiveness of various replantation strategies.

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.

Correlation of HISS and Strickland Score with the Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire in hand injuries

BACKGROUND

The widely used Hand Injury Severity Score (HISS) has intrinsic drawbacks like inability to score vascular status and questionable correlation with Disability of Arm, shoulder and Hand. We compared it with the Strickland score which is easier to calculate and has provision for evaluation of vascular status. We assessed correlation of both the scores with the Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ).

METHODS

In a prospective study of 1574 patients admitted with hand injuries, we recorded their HISS and Strickland scores and followed them up for a year and later interviewed for MHQ score. Statistical correlation was done comparing the HISS and Strickland score with the MHQ using the SPSS package.

RESULTS

Majority of these injuries were in manual labourers (47.5%) with agricultural or industrial background with a mean age of 25 years (18-26 years). Using the One-way ANOVA test we found a significant correlation between the HISS and MHQ (P Value < 0.001). Using the Unpaired T-test, statistically significant association (P < 0.001) was seen between the Strickland score and MHQ. The correlation between HISS and Strickland Score done by One-way ANOVA Test was also found to be significant (P Value < 0.001). On evaluating the group of patients with a Strickland score >10, we observed that the MHQ was almost similar between those who underwent amputation with those who underwent a successful salvage, though not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

HISS and Strickland score correlated significantly with each other and with the MHQ. Strickland score was easy and quicker to determine the salvagability of hand injury. However, small group of patients who may benefit from salvage in spite of a high Strickland score where factors like patient's age, occupation, comorbid health condition, motivation, expenses, and social environment needs to be taken into account in decision making.

Nerve wrap after end-to-end and tension-free neurorrhaphy attenuates neuropathic pain: A prospective study based on cohorts of digit replantation

The repair of injured peripheral nerve is still challenging for surgeons. The end-to-end and tension-free neurorrhaphy is the current gold standard for reconstruction after complete nerve transection without significant defect. The main objective of this study neurorrhaphy in digit replantation affects the sensory recovery and neuropathic pain in replanted digit. Total 101 patients who received replantation of single completely amputated digit were included for analysis in this study. In group I (n = 49), the digital nerves were repaired with end-to-end and tension-free neurorrhaphy and then wrapped into a tendon-derived collagen nerve conduit. In group II (n = 52), the digital nerves were repaired with end-to-end and tension-free neurorrhaphy only. The static two-point discrimination (s2PD) was performed to evaluate sensory recovery. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores of pain at rest and with exertion were measured respectively. The s2PD tests at three and six months after surgery did not show any significant difference between the two groups. The VAS scores at rest and with exertion of group I were significantly reduced compared with those of group II at three and six months after surgery. Thus, we concluded that nerve wrap into a collagen conduit after end-to-end and tension-free neurorrhaphy could attenuate neuropathic pain after digit replantation but have no benefit for sensory recovery.

Free serratus anterior fascial flap combined with vascularized scapular bone for reconstruction of dorsal hand and finger defects

We present two cases of serratus anterior free fascial flap combined with vascularized scapular bone graft for reconstruction of traumatized dorsal hand and phalangeal bone defects. Composite flaps with single vascular pedicles allowed conservation of severely injured fingers and provided good functional and cosmetic outcomes.

Management of partial fingertip amputation in adults: Operative and non operative treatment

BACKGROUND

Hand and finger injuries account for approximately 4.8 million visits to emergency departments each year. These injuries can cause a great deal of distress for both patients and providers and are often initially encountered in urgent care clinics, community hospitals, and level one trauma centers. Tip amputation injuries vary widely in mechanism, ranging from sharp lacerations to crush injuries that present with varying degrees of contamination. The severity of damage to soft tissue, bone, arteries and nerves is dependent upon the mechanism and guides treatment decision-making. The management algorithm can oftentimes be complex, as a wide variety of providers, including orthopedists, general surgeons, plastic surgeons and emergency physicians, may care for these injuries, depending on location and local culture. We review the common mechanisms for tip amputation and the optimal treatment in adults, based on the severity of the injury, degree of wound contamination, and the facilities available to the provider.

METHODS

Pubmed was searched using text words for articles related to management of fingertip injuries in adults. Bibliographies of matching articles were searched for additional relevant articles, which were then also reviewed. 107 articles were reviewed in total, and 61 were deemed relevant for inclusion. All clinical studies and reviews were included. Particular attention was paid to articles published within the past 15 years.

RESULTS

In the United States, up to 90% of fingertip amputations are treated with non-replant techniques. In comparison, the majority of amputations in Asian countries are replanted due to moral values and importance of body integrity. Tip amputation injuries can be managed with local debridement, complex reconstruction, or simply with irrigation and application of a sterile dressing.

CONCLUSION

In the United States, most fingertip amputations in adults are treated with non-replant techniques. However, the precise management of a fingertip injury in adults depends on the degree of injury itself, and a number of operative and non-operative techniques may be successfully employed.

Distraction Lengthening Following Vascularized Second Toe Transfer for Isolated Middle Finger Reconstruction

PURPOSE

We report the use of distraction lengthening of the middle phalanx after vascularized second toe transfer for middle finger reconstruction to lengthen the digit to match the index and ring fingers.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 3 patients with a mean follow-up of 30 months.

RESULTS

A mean increase of 2.0 cm in the length in the digit was achieved. The range of motion at the proximal interphalangeal joint was preserved and bony union was seen at the distraction site in all 3 cases. All patients had an excellent functional and aesthetic outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Distraction lengthening of vascularized toe transfers is a feasible undertaking.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic V.