| Literature DB >> 32938492 |
Ruizheng Hao1, Bin Wang2, Hui Wang1, Huanyou Yang1, Yongxin Huo1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To examine the efficacy of combination of the reverse dorsoradial flap of the thumb and middle finger proper digital arterial island flap for repair of distal thumb degloving injury.Entities:
Keywords: Distal thumb degloving injury; Middle finger proper digital arterial island flap; Reverse dorsoradial flap of the thumb
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32938492 PMCID: PMC7493840 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-020-01940-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Demographic and surgical details of the patients
Fig. 1a The reverse dorsoradial flap of the thumb was designed on the radial dorsal area of the thumb according to the size of the skin defect on the dorsal side of the thumb. The rotation point is located on the radial side of the thumb interphalangeal joint. The axis aligned the radial side of the carpal joint with the radial side of the interphalangeal joint. The flap and pedicle included the superficial branch of radial nerve of dorsal thumb. b The middle finger proper digital arterial island flap was then designed according to the injury size of the palmar thumb. The flap contains dorsal branches of the proper digital nerve. The pedicle of the flap was designed as a narrow shape encompassing the proper palmar digital artery of the ulnar side of the middle finger. The radial proper digital artery of the ring finger was cut off and ligated at the beginning. c Under the microscope, the dorsal branch of the digital proper nerve was anastomosed with the ulnar proper nerve of the thumb. The reverse dorsoradial flap of the thumb and the middle finger proper digital arterial island flap were used to repair the degloving injury of the distal thumb
Postoperative assessment of injured finger
| Palmar of finger | Dorsal of finger | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case | S-2PD, mm | SWM | Cold Intolerance | Pain | S-2PD, mm | SWM | Cold Intolerance | Pain |
| 1 | 7 | 3.65 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 4.61 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 7 | 4.12 | 20 | 1 | 6 | 4.28 | 20 | 0 |
| 3 | 9 | 4.32 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 3.76 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 7 | 3.65 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 4.32 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 9 | 3.75 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2.83 | 10 | 2 |
| 6 | 6 | 4.24 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 4.28 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | 7 | 3.65 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 3.96 | 0 | 2 |
| 8 | 9 | 4.15 | 10 | 0 | 11 | 4.28 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | 9 | 3.85 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 3.59 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | 5 | 3.51 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 3.61 | 0 | 4 |
| 11 | 8 | 3.47 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 4.28 | 20 | 0 |
| 12 | 9 | 3.84 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 4.56 | 0 | 0 |
| Mean | 7 | 3.85 | 9 | 4.03 | ||||
S-2PD static 2-point discrimination, SWM Semmes–Weinstein monofilament
ROM assessment of the thumbs
| ROM (degree) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CASE | MCPI | MCPC | IPI | IPC |
| 1 | 80 | 80 | 30 | 30 |
| 2 | 40 | 45 | 75 | 80 |
| 3 | 60 | 57 | 70 | 78 |
| 4 | 60 | 60 | 65 | 70 |
| 5 | 65 | 70 | 65 | 65 |
| 6 | 65 | 65 | 72 | 70 |
| 7 | 60 | 55 | 60 | 60 |
| 8 | 65 | 62 | 68 | 75 |
| 9 | 54 | 65 | 72 | 66 |
| 10 | 75 | 80 | 65 | 65 |
| 11 | 70 | 80 | 55 | 75 |
| 12 | 80 | 80 | 70 | 70 |
| Mean | 64.50 | 66.58 | 63.92 | 67.00 |
1.431 0.185 | 1.602 | |||
| 0.137 | ||||
ROM range of motion, MCPI metacarpophalangeal joint of injury side, MCPC metacarpophalangeal joint of contralateral side, IPI interphalangeal joint of injury side, IPC interphalangeal joints of contralateral side
Fig. 2Flap of case 4. a, b The size of the defect were 2.0 cm × 2.6 cm on the palm side and 2.0 cm × 2.6 cm on the dorsal side. c–e Skin flap cutting and suturing. f, g The appearance of the flaps 15 months later
Fig. 3Flap of case 11. a, b The size of the defect were 2.0 cm × 2.6 cm on the palm side and 1.8 cm × 2.6 cm on the dorsal side. c The flaps were cut. d, e After skin flap suturing. f–h The appearance of the flaps 18 months later