| Literature DB >> 29234652 |
Leandro Azevedo de Figueiredo1, Rafael de Souza Ribeiro1, Antonio Leão Bandeira de Melo1, André Luiz Lima1, Bernardo Barcellos Terra1, Fernando Carvalho Ventim1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Report the results of treatment of fingertip injuries and describe this reproducible and low cost surgical technique, which utilizes a polypropylene prosthesis that temporarily replaces the nail and is placed on the area of injury, providing protection and encouragement for healing by secondary intention.Entities:
Keywords: Adults; Finger phalanges; Fingers injuries
Year: 2017 PMID: 29234652 PMCID: PMC5720855 DOI: 10.1016/j.rboe.2016.10.017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Bras Ortop ISSN: 2255-4971
Descriptive analysis of numerical variables.
| Mean | SD | Median | Min | Max | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 22 | 40.27 | 14.7 | 39 | 16 | 67 |
| 2PD (mm) | 22 | 2.86 | 0.68 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Time from injury to surgery (days) | 22 | 5.38 | 7.17 | 2 | 0.5 | 28 |
| Follow-up (months) | 22 | 13.05 | 7.14 | 12 | 6 | 36 |
2PD, dynamic sensitivity between two points.
Fig. 1Clinical case 1: female patient, 49 years old. Trauma by crushing the ring finger; (a) oblique volar wound with great loss of substance and difficult flap planning; (b) plastic fixed with U-suture. Note the small nail bed; (c) attaching the plastic to the edges of the wound; (d and e): aspect after one week; (f and g) plastic removed after 45 days; (h and i): aspect after 70 days.
Fig. 2Clinical case 2: female patient, 34 years old. Trauma by crushing the middle finger; (a) aspect of the dorsum of the finger with complex nail bed lesion; (b) oblique volar injury (difficult flap use); (c) plastic trimmed into a U-shape; (d) intraoperative aspect; (e and f): late postoperative aspect. Presence of a viable nail.
Fig. 3Clinical case 3: male patient, 38 years old. Injury to the radial border of the thumb; (a and b) thumb with extensive oblique lesion from its radial border (difficult flap planning); (c and d) aspect of plastic covering large open area; (e and f): epithelization aspect, one week after removal of the plastic. The thumb acquires a rounded shape.
Esthetic and functional classification according to the sum of the results.
| Nail growth | 0 = no growth; 1 = partial growth with arrest; 2 = normal growth |
| Nail size | 0 ≤ 50%; 1 = between 50% and 75%; 2 = 75% of the size of the nail on the opposite side |
| Nail shape | 0 = significant deformity in the vertical plane; 1 = small deformity in the vertical plane; 2 = no deformity |
| Total score 6 | The results were obtained by additing up, and the scores were classified as good (5–6), regular (3–4), or poor (<3) |
Descriptive analysis of qualitative variables.
| Frequency ( | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 20 | 90.9 |
| Female | 2 | 9.1 |
| Right | 9 | 40.9 |
| Left | 13 | 59.1 |
| Ring | 5 | 22.7 |
| Index | 6 | 27.3 |
| Middle | 6 | 27.3 |
| Little | 2 | 9.1 |
| Thumb | 3 | 13.6 |
| Car accident | 1 | 4.5 |
| Crushing | 10 | 45.5 |
| Explosion | 1 | 4.5 |
| Power drill | 1 | 4.5 |
| Polishing machine | 1 | 4.5 |
| Saw | 3 | 13.6 |
| Firearm projectile | 1 | 4.5 |
| Direct trauma | 2 | 9.1 |
| Chain trauma | 1 | 4.5 |
| Door trauma | 1 | 4.5 |
| Yes | 2 | 9.1 |
| No | 20 | 90.9 |
| 2PD | ||
| Normal | 17 | 77.3 |
| Satisfactory | 5 | 22.7 |
| No | 21 | 95.5 |
| Yes | 1 | 4.5 |
| 1 | 2 | 9.1 |
| 2 | 20 | 90.9 |
| 0 | 2 | 9.1 |
| 1 | 3 | 13.6 |
| 2 | 17 | 77.3 |
| 0 | 2 | 9.1 |
| 1 | 12 | 54.5 |
| 2 | 8 | 36.4 |
| Good | 12 | 54.5 |
| Excellent | 10 | 45.5 |
Analysis between score and age, time between injury and surgery, and follow-up time.
| Score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ||
| Age (years) | 58.5 (± 9.19) | 28.5 (± 3.82) | 40.2 (± 14.0) | 41.8 (± 14.2) | 0.1 |
| Time from injury to surgery (days) | 10.7 (± 14.42) | 3.5 (± 3.71) | 6.0 (± 9.00) | 4.0 (± 3.78) | 0.97 |
| Follow-up (months) | 6.5 (± 0.7) | 19.4 (± 11.3) | 12.4 (± 5.51) | 12.0 (± 5.38) | 0.16 |
Kruskal–Wallis test.
Analysis between subjective evaluation and age, time between injury and surgery, and follow-up time.
| Evaluation | Subjective | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Good | Excellent | ||
| Age (years) | 44.8 (± 13.4) | 34.4 (± 13.4) | 0.09 |
| Time from injury to surgery (days) | 4.2 (± 7.6) | 6.7 (± 6.6) | 0.22 |
| Follow-up (months) | 13.4 (± 5.5) | 12.6 (± 9.0) | 0.49 |
Mann–Whitney test.
Analysis between sensitivity and age, time between injury and surgery, and follow-up time.
| Sensitivity | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Satisfactory | ||
| Age (years) | 41.88 (± 13.4) | 34.81 (± 16.3) | 0.35 |
| Time from injury to surgery (days) | 6.35 (± 9.92) | 2.00 (± 1.0) | 0.64 |
| Follow-up (months) | 12.24 (± 7.7) | 15.8 (± 3.4) | 0.12 |
Mann–Whitney test.
Correlation between sensitivity and age, time between injury and surgery, and follow-up time.
| 2PD | 0.23 | 0.98 |
| 2PD | −0.006 | 0.3 |
| 2PD | 0.21 | 0.32 |
r, Spearman's correlation coefficient.