| Literature DB >> 35291357 |
Ahmed Racem Guidara1, Sahnoun Nizar1, Tarek Bardaa1, Moez Trigui1, Sana Kmiha2, Kamel Ayadi1, Hassib Keskes1.
Abstract
Congenital syndactylies are frequent congenital malformations of the hand. They can be an isolated finding or they can be found in association with other polymalformative syndromes. Several surgical techniques used to treat them have been described in the literature. The most used is the dorsal commissural omega-flap technique. We here report a study of 18 patients with congenital syndactyly, with multiple involvement in several cases, whose data were collected at the Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology of Sfax (Tunisia). All patients were operated using the dorsal commissural omega-flap technique. We operated 42 commissures in 18 patients. The average age of patients was 7 years. Only 3 patients had syndromic forms. Six of these patients were operated in two stages. For scar quality, mean OSAS score was 11.47 (11.35 for simple types and 12 for complex types). All patients with complex types had long-term complications (100%). Six patients with simple types out of 14 had complications (42.85%). The management of congenital syndactylies is surgical. It is important to provide parents with accurate information on the essential role of follow-up appointments in order to avoid complications in the short and the long term. Copyright: Ahmed Racem Guidara et al.Entities:
Keywords: Congenital syndactylies; flap; polymalformative syndromes; skin graft
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35291357 PMCID: PMC8895564 DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2022.41.30.30253
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pan Afr Med J
Figure 1temtamy and McKusick classification [1]
Figure 2anatomic classification of congenital syndactylies; simple incomplete (A); simple complete (B), complex (C), complicated (D)
observer scare assessment scale (OSAS)
| Normal Skin | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| Vascularization | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| Pigmentation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| Thickness | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| Relief | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| Pliability | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| Total Score | ||||||||||
commissure evaluation according to Whitey
| Whitey score | Commissure appearance |
|---|---|
| 0 | Normal appearance of the commissure |
| 1 | Opening reduction without web creep |
| 2 | 1/3 of P1 web creep |
| 3 | 2/3 of P1 web creep |
| 4 | All P1 web creep |
Figure 3post-operative infection
distribution of long-term complications by type of syndactyly
| Simple partial | Simple complete | Complex | TOTAL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexum | 2 | 0 | 4 | 6 |
| Clinodactyly | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Commissural retraction | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Nail dystrophy | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Surgical revision | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
recapitulation of clinical features of syndactylies and classifications
| Patient | Age (years) | Sex | Affected side(s) | Affected commissures | Hand(s) radiographs | Syndromic / Non- syndromic/Not labeled associated malformation | Temtamy and McKusick Classification | Anatomic Classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8 | F | Bilateral | 4 | Normal | Non-syndromic | Type 3 | Simple complete |
| 2 | 27 | F | Left | 4 | Normal | Non-syndromic | Type 1 | Simple partial |
| 3 | 6 | F | Bilateral | 3 + 4 | Bone synostosis | Apert syndrome | - | Complex |
| 4 | 6 | M | Left | 4 | Normal | Non-syndromic | Type 1 | Simple partial |
| 5 | 12 | M | Bilateral | 3 + 4 | Normal | Non-syndromic | Type 1 | Simple complete |
| 6 | 19 | F | Right | 3 | Normal | Non-syndromic | Type 1 | Simple complete |
| 7 | 8 | M | Right | 3 | Normal | Dysmorphic syndrome +Interventricular communication + Ptosis | Type 1 | Simple partial |
| 8 | 4 | M | Bilateral | 3 + 4 | Bone synostosis | Apert syndrome + Left soft clubfoot | - | Complex |
| 9 | 7 | M | Left | 3 | Normal | Non-syndromic | Type 1 | Simple complete |
| 10 | 6 | M | Left | 3 | Normal | Toes syndactyly | Type 1 | Simple partial |
| 11 | 7 | M | Bilateral | 3 + 4 | Normal | Non-syndromic | Type 3 | Simple complete |
| 12 | 31 | M | Left | 3 + 4 | Normal | Non-syndromic | Type 1 | Simple complete |
| 13 | 5 | F | Bilateral | 4 | Normal | Non-syndromic | Type 3 | Simple complete |
| 14 | 15 | F | Left | 3 | Normal | Non-syndromic | Type 1 | Simple complete |
| 15 | 15 | F | Bilateral | 3 | Normal | Toes syndactyly | Type 1 | Simple partial |
| 16 | 24 | M | Bilateral | 2+ 3 + 4 | Normal | Toes syndactyly | Type 1 | Simple complete |
| 17 | 5 | M | Right | All | Bone synostosis | Apert syndrome + Agenesis of a central ray | - | Complex |
| 18 | 18 | M | Right | 1 + 4 | Normal | Agenesis of a central ray | Type 1 | Simple complete |
recapitulation of follow-up andlong-term complications
| Patients | Follow-up (years) | OSAS score | Whitey score | Mobility | Clinodactyly | Retraction | Flexum | Nail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | 12 | 0 | Normal | No | No | Yes | Good condition |
| 2 | 0,5 | 6 | 0 | Normal | Yes | No | No | Good condition |
| 3 | 5 | 11 | 2 | Normal | Yes | Yes | No | Good condition |
| 4 | 4 | 11 | 0 | Normal | No | No | No | Good condition |
| 5 | 2 | 11 | 0 | Normal | Yes | No | No | Dystrophic |
| 6 | 1 | 7 | 0 | Normal | No | No | No | Good condition |
| 7 | 7 | 6 | 0 | Normal | No | No | No | Good condition |
| 8 | 3 | 13 | 1 | Normal | Yes | No | Yes | Dystrophic |
| 9 | 1 | 15 | 0 | Normal | No | No | No | Good condition |
| 10 | 1 | 11 | 0 | Normal | No | No | No | Dystrophic |
| 11 | 5 | 9 | 0 | Normal | No | No | Yes | Good condition |
| 12 | 4 | 19 | 0 | Normal | No | No | No | Good condition |
| 13 | 3 | 8 | 0 | Normal | Yes | No | No | Good condition |
| 14 | 10 | 11 | 0 | Normal | No | No | No | Good condition |
| 15 | 10 | 12 | 0 | Normal | No | No | No | Good condition |
| 16 | 10 | 21 | 2 | Normal | No | No | No | Good condition |
| 17 | 0,5 | 12 | 0 | Abnormal | No | No | No | Dystrophic |
| 18 | Lost patient |