| Literature DB >> 28352604 |
Oscar J Manrique1, Pedro Ciudad1, Matthew Doscher2, Federico Lo Torto1, Ralph Liebling2, Ricardo Galan3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital amputation is a common upper extremity injury and can cause significant impairment in hand function, as well as psychosocial stigma. Currently, the gold standard for the reconstruction of such injuries involves autologous reconstruction. However, when this or other autologous options are not available, prosthetic reconstruction can provide a functionally and aesthetically viable alternative. This study describes a novel technique, known as a tripod titanium mini-plate, for osseointegrated digit prostheses, and reviews the outcomes in a set of consecutive patients.Entities:
Keywords: Amputation; Osseointegration; Outcome assessment; Prostheses
Year: 2017 PMID: 28352604 PMCID: PMC5366522 DOI: 10.5999/aps.2017.44.2.150
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Plast Surg ISSN: 2234-6163
Fig. 1Mini-plate design
Tripod titanium mini plate with 3 anchoring screws and a tip magnet device.
Fig. 2Mini-plate placement
(A) Adjustment of the titanium tripod to the distal phalangeal stump. (B) Soft tissue closure of the phalangeal stump with exposure of the anchoring magnet.
Fig. 3Postoperative hand X-ray
(A) Anteroposterior and (B) lateral hand X-rays 6 months after surgery show no lucency around the plates and screws, which is associated with adequate osseointegration of the prostheses at the distal phalangeal stump.
Fig. 4Insertion and color match of prostheses
(A) Postoperative picture of Patient 1 with the right index finger prostheses prior to insertion with exposure of magnetic tip. (B) Fitting of the right index finger prostheses to demonstrate color and length match. (C) Patient demonstrating fitting of pen into the right hand (writing) as a functional outcome.
Fig. 5Patient with amputation of multiple digits
Patient 2. (A) Multiple digit amputation (digits 2, 3, and 4) of the right hand. (B) Three-dimensional reconstruction of the missing digits. (C) Dorsal and (D) volar aspects of the right hand after the prostheses were placed.
Demographics and background
| Patient | Sex | Age (yr) | Hand | Amputated finger | Level | Occupation | Mechanism | Follow-up (mo) | Complications | Prosthetic failure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Male | 20 | Right | 2, 3, 4 | MP | Student | Sharp | 40 | No | No |
| 2 | Male | 34 | Right | 4 | MP | Military | Crush | 32 | No | No |
| 3 | Male | 26 | Right | 2 | PP | Military | Avulsion | 25 | No | No |
| 4 | Male | 22 | Left | 2 | PP | Student | Crush | 22 | No | No |
| 5 | Female | 28 | Right | 2.3 | PP | Secretary | Sharp | 20 | No | No |
| 6 | Male | 40 | Left | 4 | MP | Military | Avulsion | 18 | No | No |
| 7 | Female | 33 | Right | 2 | PP | Secretary | Avulsion | 14 | Cellulitis | No |
MP, middle phalanx; PP, proximal phalanx.
Quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (Q-DASH) scores
| Patient | Open jar | Heavy household | Carrying shopping bag | Wash your back | Cut your food | Recreational activities | Social activities | Work/Regular activities | Pain | Tingling | Sleep | Q-DASH score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 91 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 11, 4 |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6, 8 |
| 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 11, 4 |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 11, 4 |
| 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11, 4 |
| 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 11, 4 |
Visual analog scale (VAS) scores
| Patient | Size | Length | Flexion | Color match | Likeness | Overall appearance | Use of prosthesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
| 2 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
| 3 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 |
| 4 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 |
| 5 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 10 |
| 6 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 10 |
| 7 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 9 |
The VAS scores were obtained by showing the patient a 10-cm horizontal line with 10 (full function, no complaints) marked on the far right and 0 (no function, strong complaints) marked on the far left. The patient was asked to mark a point along the line indicating the level of function, size, length, color match, likeness, overall appearance, and use of the prosthesis.