| Literature DB >> 35743460 |
Byung Woo Yoo1, Seungyoon Oh1, Junekyu Kim1, Kap Sung Oh1, Hyun Woo Shin1, Kyu Nam Kim1.
Abstract
This study aimed to demonstrate the expanding versatility of keystone flap reconstruction in fingertips. Fifteen patients who underwent the modified mini-keystone flap reconstruction for tiny volar pulp defects of the fingertip between September 2020 and February 2021 were included in this study (average age: 43.4 ± 13.52 years, range: 19-61 years). Patient data were retrospectively collected from their medical records. The two-point discrimination test was used to evaluate the degree of sensory recovery. All defects were successfully covered with the modified mini-keystone flap. The defect sizes ranged from 0.5 cm × 1 cm to 1.2 cm × 2.0 cm, and the flap sizes ranged from 0.7 cm × 1.5 cm to 1.5 cm × 3.0 cm. Although one patient showed a small distal margin maceration, all flaps survived fully. The overall outcomes were favorable at the mean follow-up period of 5.73 ± 0.79 months. We suggest that the modified mini-keystone flap technique is a promising alternative modality for covering tiny volar pulp defects of the fingertip, with few complications and favorable outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: fingertip defect; flap coverage; keystone flap; tiny defect; volar pulp defect
Year: 2022 PMID: 35743460 PMCID: PMC9225022 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11123394
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.964
Figure 1Schematic diagrams of modified mini-keystone flap (m-KF) reconstruction for tiny volar defects of the fingertip. (A) Various tiny volar defects of the fingertips (red-colored ovals) and designs of the modified m-KFs (blue-colored lines). (B) Final appearance after coverage of the modified m-KFs (blue-colored lines).
Figure 2The two-point discrimination test (2-PDT). To perform the 2-PDT, the evaluator touches the patient’s fingertip with the two-point discriminator device, randomly alternating between one and two points. The patient is asked to report whether one or two points were felt.
Patients’ data.
| Case | Age/Sex | Cause of the Defect | Defect Location | Defect Size (cm2) | Flap Size (cm2) | Flap Survival | Complications | Static 2-PDT (Affected Fingertip/Contralateral Normal Fingertip, mm) | Dynamic 2-PDT (Affected Fingertip/Contralateral Normal Fingertip, mm) | Follow-Up Period (Months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F/27 | Trauma caused by cutter knife | Rt. volar pulp of the thumb | 0.7 × 1.0 | 0.9 × 2.0 | Fully survived | None | 3/3 | 2/2 | 7 |
| 2 | F/59 | Trauma caused by kitchen knife | Lt. volar pulp of the fifth finger | 0.5 × 1.0 | 0.7 × 1.5 | Fully survived | None | 4/4 | 3/3 | 6 |
| 3 | M/61 | Trauma caused by cutter knife | Rt. volar pulp of the thumb | 1.0 × 1.5 | 1.5 × 3.0 | Fully survived | Distal margin maceration | 6/4 | 5/3 | 5 |
| 4 | M/34 | Trauma caused by cutter knife | Lt. volar pulp of the fourth finger | 0.7 × 0.9 | 0.9 × 1.6 | Fully survived | None | 3/3 | 2/2 | 7 |
| 5 | M/47 | Trauma caused by cutter knife | Rt. volar pulp of the second finger | 0.6 × 1.0 | 0.8 × 1.5 | Fully survived | None | 2/2 | 2/2 | 6 |
| 6 | M/36 | Trauma caused by cutter knife | Lt. volar pulp of the fifth finger | 0.6 × 1.5 | 0.8 × 2.5 | Fully survived | None | 4/4 | 3/3 | 6 |
| 7 | M/19 | Trauma caused by cutter knife | Rt. volar pulp of the thumb | 0.8 × 1.1 | 1.0 × 2.3 | Fully survived | None | 3/3 | 2/2 | 7 |
| 8 | M/41 | Trauma caused by kitchen knife | Lt. volar pulp of the second finger | 0.6 × 1.0 | 0.8 × 2.0 | Fully survived | None | 4/4 | 3/3 | 6 |
| 9 | M/58 | Trauma caused by cutter knife | Rt. volar pulp of the second finger | 0.9 × 1.5 | 1.3 × 2.5 | Fully survived | None | 4/4 | 4/4 | 5 |
| 10 | M/56 | Trauma caused by cutter knife | Lt. volar pulp of the second finger | 0.6 × 1.2 | 0.9 × 1.6 | Fully survived | None | 5/4 | 4/3 | 5 |
| 11 | M/30 | Trauma caused by kitchen knife | Lt. volar pulp of the thumb | 1.2 × 2.0 | 1.5 × 3.0 | Fully survived | None | 6/4 | 5/3 | 5 |
| 12 | M/31 | Trauma caused by kitchen knife | Lt. volar pulp of the second finger | 0.7 × 1.2 | 1.0 × 2.2 | Fully survived | None | 3/3 | 3/3 | 5 |
| 13 | F/42 | Trauma caused by cutter knife | Rt. volar pulp of the fifth finger | 0.6 × 1.1 | 0.8 × 1.7 | Fully survived | None | 4/4 | 4/4 | 5 |
| 14 | F/56 | Trauma caused by kitchen knife | Rt. volar pulp of the fourth finger | 0.7 × 1.3 | 1.1 × 1.8 | Fully survived | None | 4/4 | 3/3 | 5 |
| 15 | F/54 | Trauma caused by kitchen knife | Lt. volar pulp of the second finger | 0.8 × 1.0 | 1.2 × 2.0 | Fully survived | None | 5/4 | 4/3 | 6 |
F, female; M, male; Rt., right; Lt., left; 2-PDT, two-point discrimination test.
Summary of the two-point discrimination test data.
| Static 2-PDT | Static 2-PDT | Dynamic 2-PDT | Dynamic 2-PDT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good | 13 | 15 | 8 | 13 |
| Fair | 2 | 0 | 7 | 2 |
| Poor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mean ± SD (mm) | 4.00 ± 1.13 | 3.60 ± 0.63 | 3.27 ± 1.03 | 2.87 ± 0.64 |
| Student’s | ||||
2-PDT, two-point discrimination test; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 3Clinical photographs of a 47-year-old man who sustained a right second fingertip injury while using a cutter knife. (A,B) A tiny volar pulp defect of the right second fingertip (0.6 cm × 1 cm). (C) Design of a modified mini-keystone flap (m-KF) (0.8 cm × 1.5 cm). (D) Successful coverage of the defect with the modified m-KF. (E,F) Postoperative photographs obtained at the 6-month follow-up.
Figure 4Clinical photographs of a 36-year-old man who sustained a left fifth fingertip injury caused by a cutter knife. (A,B) A tiny volar pulp defect of the right second fingertip (0.6 cm × 1.5 cm), and design of a modified mini-keystone flap (m-KF) (0.8 × 2.5 cm). (C,D) Successful coverage of the defect with the modified m-KF. (E,F) Postoperative photographs obtained at the 6-month follow-up.
Figure 5Clinical photographs of a 30-year-old man who sustained a left thumb fingertip injury while using a kitchen knife. (A) A tiny volar pulp defect of the left thumb fingertip (1.2 cm × 2.0 cm). (B) Design of a modified mini-keystone flap (m-KF) (1.5 cm × 3.0 cm). (C) Successful coverage of the defect with the modified m-KF. (D) Postoperative photographs obtained at the 5-month follow-up.
Figure 6Comparison of mean differences between continuous variables in the two-point discrimination test (2-PDT) data. (A) Static 2-PDT. (B) Dynamic 2-PDT.