Felici N, Marcoccio I, Giunta R, Haerle M, Leclercq C, Pajardi G, Wilbrand S, Georgescu A V, Pess G
Direttore ad interim UOC Chirurgia Plastica e Chirurgie della Mano A.O.R.N. "San Camillo-Forlanini" Roma - Italy.
Instituto Clinico Città di Bressica, Unità Operativa di Chirurgia della Mano e Microchirurgia Ortopedica, Brescia - Italy.
Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2014 Dec;46(6):350-4. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1394420. Epub 2014 Nov 20.
The aim of this study was to determine a definition of recurrence of Dupuytren disease that could be utilized for the comparison of the results independently from the treatment used. 24 hand surgeons from 17 countries met in an international consensus conference. The participants used the Delphi method to evaluate a series of statements: (1) the need for defining recurrence, (2) the concept of recurrence applied to the Tubiana staging system, (3) the concept of recurrence applied to each single treated joint, and (4) the concept of recurrence applied to the finger ray. For each item, the possible answer was given on a scale of 1-5: 1=maximum disagreement; 2=disagreement; 3=agreement; 4=strong agreement; 5=absolute agreement. There was consensus on disagreement if 1 and 2 comprised at least 66% of the recorded answers and consensus on agreement if 3, 4 and 5 comprised at least 66% of the recorded answers. If a threshold of 66% was not reached, the related statement was considered "not defined". A need for a definition of recurrence was established. The presence of nodules or cords without finger contracture was not considered an indication of recurrence. The Tubiana staging system was considered inappropriate for reporting recurrence. Recurrence was best determined by the measurement of a specific joint, rather than a total ray. Time 0 occurred between 6 weeks and 3 months. Recurrence was defined as a PED of more than 20° for at least one of treated joint, in the presence of a palpable cord, compared to the result obtained at time 0. This study determined the need for a standard definition of recurrence and reached consensus on that definition, which we should become the standard for the reporting of recurrence. If utilized in subsequent publications, this will allow surgeons to compare different techniques and make is easier to help patients make an informed choice.
本研究的目的是确定一种可用于比较结果的杜普伊特伦病复发定义,该定义独立于所采用的治疗方法。来自17个国家的24位手外科医生参加了一次国际共识会议。参与者采用德尔菲法对一系列陈述进行评估:(1)定义复发的必要性;(2)应用于图比阿纳分期系统的复发概念;(3)应用于每个单一治疗关节的复发概念;(4)应用于手指射线的复发概念。对于每个项目,可能的答案按1 - 5分制给出:1 = 极度不同意;2 = 不同意;3 = 同意;4 = 强烈同意;5 = 完全同意。如果1和2至少占记录答案的66%,则达成不同意的共识;如果3、4和5至少占记录答案的66%,则达成同意的共识。如果未达到66%的阈值,则相关陈述被视为“未定义”。确定了定义复发的必要性。无手指挛缩的结节或条索的存在不被视为复发的指征。图比阿纳分期系统被认为不适用于报告复发情况。复发最好通过特定关节的测量来确定,而不是整个射线。时间0发生在6周和3个月之间。复发被定义为与时间0时获得的结果相比,在存在可触及条索的情况下,至少一个治疗关节的掌指关节伸展度(PED)超过20°。本研究确定了对复发标准定义的需求,并就该定义达成了共识,该定义应成为复发报告的标准。如果在后续出版物中使用,这将使外科医生能够比较不同技术,并更容易帮助患者做出明智的选择。