BACKGROUND: There are multiple studies about the effectiveness of primary treatment in Dupuytren's disease. However, such studies concerning treatment effectiveness of recurrent disease are scarce. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to compare treatment effectiveness of initial and repeated surgery in patients with Dupuytren's disease. METHODS: Patients who underwent both initial and repeated treatment were selected from a prospectively maintained database. Outcome measurements consisted of finger goniometry, the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, and complications. Treatment effectiveness was defined as improvement in extension deficit and patient-reported hand function. In addition, measurements at intake of both treatments were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate influence of type of surgery of initial treatment on outcomes of repeated treatment. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients were included in the analyses. Improvement in extension deficit and Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire outcomes was equal for initial and repeated treatments. Extension deficit and Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire scores were worse at intake of repeated treatment compared to these outcomes at intake of initial treatment. In addition, patients who initially underwent needle fasciotomy achieved a better contracture reduction after repeated treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that treatment of recurrent Dupuytren's disease is as effective as initial treatment, despite larger extension deficit and worse self-assessed hand function before undergoing repeated treatment. Complication rates were similar for initial and repeated treatments. Furthermore, needle fasciotomy for initial treatment results in better outcomes of repeated treatment compared to patients who initially underwent limited fasciectomy. These findings can be used for a more evidence-based preoperative counseling with patients with recurrent Dupuytren's disease. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
BACKGROUND: There are multiple studies about the effectiveness of primary treatment in Dupuytren's disease. However, such studies concerning treatment effectiveness of recurrent disease are scarce. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to compare treatment effectiveness of initial and repeated surgery in patients with Dupuytren's disease. METHODS:Patients who underwent both initial and repeated treatment were selected from a prospectively maintained database. Outcome measurements consisted of finger goniometry, the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, and complications. Treatment effectiveness was defined as improvement in extension deficit and patient-reported hand function. In addition, measurements at intake of both treatments were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate influence of type of surgery of initial treatment on outcomes of repeated treatment. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients were included in the analyses. Improvement in extension deficit and Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire outcomes was equal for initial and repeated treatments. Extension deficit and Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire scores were worse at intake of repeated treatment compared to these outcomes at intake of initial treatment. In addition, patients who initially underwent needle fasciotomy achieved a better contracture reduction after repeated treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that treatment of recurrent Dupuytren's disease is as effective as initial treatment, despite larger extension deficit and worse self-assessed hand function before undergoing repeated treatment. Complication rates were similar for initial and repeated treatments. Furthermore, needle fasciotomy for initial treatment results in better outcomes of repeated treatment compared to patients who initially underwent limited fasciectomy. These findings can be used for a more evidence-based preoperative counseling with patients with recurrent Dupuytren's disease. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
Authors: Mike Ruettermann; Robert Michael Hermann; Karl Khatib-Chahidi; Paul M N Werker Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 8.251