| Literature DB >> 35225699 |
Weibin Du1,2, Fangbing Zhu1,2, HeLou Zhang3, Jun Yang1,2, Wei Zhuang1,2, Qiao Hou1,2.
Abstract
This study investigated the surgical method and therapeutic effect of retrograde island flap bridge transfer of the adjacent phalangeal artery combined with vascular pedicle tubular skin grafting to repair finger pulp defects. From June 2008 to May 2020, 21 fingers (19 patients) were repaired using this method. The postoperative flap survival rate and complications, and the clinical effect, were evaluated. All flaps survived, and all patients were followed-up for 12 to 46 months. The static two-point discrimination (2PD) was 7 to 11 mm, no apparent complications were observed in the donor area and the McIndoe cold intolerance symptom severity (CISS) scores indicated mild severity. The Michigan hand outcome questionnaire (MHQ) indicated that all patients were satisfied with their overall hand appearance and function. Results were excellent in 15 cases and good in 4 cases, according to the Dargan function evaluation (DFE). It is safe and effective to repair finger pulp defects with a retrograde island flap bridge transfer of the adjacent phalangeal artery combined with vascular pedicle tubular skin grafting. This skin flap has the advantages of simple severing, good texture and concealed donor area, which is convenient for early postoperative functional exercise of the finger.Entities:
Keywords: Adjacent finger; aesthetics; bridge transfer; finger pulp defect; postoperative outcome; retrograde island flap; vascular pedicle
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35225699 PMCID: PMC8894969 DOI: 10.1177/03000605221082892
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Int Med Res ISSN: 0300-0605 Impact factor: 1.671
The patients’ demographic data, injury types and defect sizes.
| Case | Age | Sex | Injured fingers | Finger pulp defect | Defect size (cm) | Operation time (h) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | early 30s | 1 | 2 | N | 4.2 × 1.8 | 1.6 |
| 2 | early 40s | 2 | 2, 5 | N | 2.6 × 2.02.5 × 2.0 | 2.2 |
| 3 | early 30s | 2 | 3 | M | 3.2 × 2.2 | 1.4 |
| 4 | early 40s | 1 | 3 | M | 3.2 × 2.2 | 1.6 |
| 5 | early 50s | 2 | 3, 4 | N | 3.6 × 1.84.2 × 2.0 | 2.5 |
| 6 | early 50s | 1 | 2 | N | 4.5 × 2.2 | 1.6 |
| 7 | early 40s | 1 | 2 | M | 3.0 × 2.2 | 1.5 |
| 8 | early 40s | 1 | 2 | N | 3.0 × 2.0 | 1.5 |
| 9 | early 30s | 2 | 4 | N | 2.4 × 1.8 | 1.4 |
| 10 | early 30s | 1 | 3 | M | 3.0 × 1.8 | 1.5 |
| 11 | early 40s | 1 | 3 | N | 3.2 × 1.9 | 1.4 |
| 12 | early 40s | 1 | 4 | N | 2.8 × 2.0 | 1.4 |
| 13 | early 50s | 1 | 3 | N | 3.0 × 2.0 | 1.4 |
| 14 | early 30s | 2 | 4 | N | 3.4 × 1.8 | 1.5 |
| 15 | early 30s | 1 | 4 | N | 2.9 × 1.9 | 1.4 |
| 16 | early 10s | 1 | 4 | M | 3.0 × 1.9 | 1.5 |
| 17 | early 40s | 1 | 4 | N | 3.2 × 1.8 | 1.6 |
| 18 | early 40s | 2 | 5 | N | 2.6 × 1.8 | 1.5 |
| 19 | early 30s | 2 | 5 | N | 2.7 × 1.8 | 1.5 |
Sex: 1: male, 2: female, M: finger pulp defect extending past the distal interphalangeal joint, N: severe contusion of the proximal and middle phalanges combined with finger pulp defect.
The patients’ clinical and functional results.
| Case | CISS | 2PD | MHQ | DFE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mild | 11 | 88 | Good |
| 2 | Mild | 8 | 95 | Excellent |
| 3 | Mild | 8 | 95 | Excellent |
| 4 | Mild | 8 | 93 | Excellent |
| 5 | Mild | 10 | 90 | Good |
| 6 | Mild | 8 | 95 | Good |
| 7 | Mild | 7 | 96 | Excellent |
| 8 | Mild | 7 | 96 | Excellent |
| 9 | Mild | 8 | 94 | Excellent |
| 10 | Mild | 8 | 94 | Excellent |
| 11 | Mild | 7 | 95 | Excellent |
| 12 | Mild | 9 | 92 | Excellent |
| 13 | Mild | 8 | 94 | Excellent |
| 14 | Mild | 8 | 96 | Excellent |
| 15 | Mild | 9 | 92 | Excellent |
| 16 | Mild | 7 | 92 | Excellent |
| 17 | Mild | 11 | 90 | Good |
| 18 | Mild | 9 | 94 | Excellent |
| 19 | Mild | 7 | 92 | Excellent |
CISS: cold intolerance symptom severity, 2PD: two-point discrimination, MHQ: Michigan hand outcome questionnaire, DFE: Dargan function evaluation.
Figure 1.Patient, female, early 50s. (a) Preoperative appearance of the left middle and ring finger injuries. (b) The appearance of the wound surfaces after debridement and suturing. (c) Intraoperative appearance of the flap. (d and e) Intraoperative flap transplantation. (f) Intraoperative tubular skin grafting at the vascular pedicle. (g) Survival of the flap after pedicle amputation. (h and i) Postoperative skin flap appearance and finger function.
Figure 2.Patient, male, early teens. (a) Preoperative appearance of the right ring finger injuries. (b) Intraoperative appearance of the flap. (c and d) Intraoperative flap transplantation. (e) Intraoperative tubular skin grafting at the vascular pedicle. (f and g) Survival of the flap after pedicle amputation. (h and i) Postoperative skin flap appearance and finger function.
Strengths and limitations of retrograde island flap bridge transfer of the adjacent phalangeal artery combined with vascular pedicle tubular skin grafting.
| Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|
| 1. The donor area is concealed, the flap is close to the recipient area and the dorsal branch of the digital nerve can be carried over. | 1. The flap is cut in a small area and can be used to repair only two finger pulp defects simultaneously. |
| 2. The flap includes the main digital artery, and flexion and extension exercise is possible early after the operation. | 2. It is necessary to sacrifice the digital artery on one side of the finger in the donor area. |
| 3. The operation is simple and does not involve anastomosing blood vessels. | |
| 4. The flap pedicle is narrow and easy to sever in advance. | |
| 5. No additional damage to the proximally injured tissues of the finger are induced. | |
| 6. The injured finger has no open subcutaneous tunnel, and scarring is minimal. |