Valauri F A, Buncke H J
Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Medical Center, New York.
Clin Plast Surg. 1989 Jul;16(3):475-89.
Thumb reconstruction has a long and exciting history spanning more than 100 years. Reflecting on the evolution of techniques, the problems encountered and solved, and the advancement of technologies, one is struck by the versatility of surgeons in their varied approaches to the restoration of the thumb. Philosophical differences over the relative advantages and disadvantages of each operation have fueled debate over the choice of technique, but a unifying concept in reconstruction "to replace the lost tissue with like tissue" must be sought. The ideal reconstruction is one that replaces all of the lost structures, provides restoration of all function, and has no donor site morbidity. Homotransplantation of the thumb fits each of these criteria and may well be available some day. The experimental work of Furnas and others with limb transplantation is bringing us ever closer to realizing this goal. Even now, cadaver preparations of bone, joint, and tendon together with wrap-around flaps are being used clinically for thumb reconstruction. The initial reports are favorable, and these procedures portend exciting prospects for the future when immunological barriers can be selectively overcome. Some 10 years ago Dr. Littler, in discussing thumb reconstruction, wrote "Just as the neurovascular pedicle method of composite tissue transfer unshackled the older but limited procedures and made possible more accurate planning in substituting for the structural loss, so must the new freedom, afforded the transfer of composite tissue through microvascular surgery, not fail to utilize established structural and functional principles. Nor must the urge to use the free transfer method lure the surgeon from a safer, more predictable procedure." In the decade since Dr. Littler expressed these sentiments, a great deal of progress has been made in microsurgery, and we feel that there is ample evidence in our clinical experience as well as that of the literature to allow us to state with confidence that great toe to thumb transfer is a safe, reliable, and efficient means of thumb reconstruction that offers significant advantages over other techniques and few disadvantages. Anatomically, the great toe is nearly identical to the thumb and provides a transplant with tendon, bone, joint, and innervated skin elements that, in many instances, restores the attributes of the lost thumb in a superior fashion compared with other procedures. Our series now consists of 80 great toe transplants and the results continue to be gratifying. In short, great toes make great thumbs.
拇指再造有着超过100年漫长且令人瞩目的历史。回顾技术的演变、遇到并解决的问题以及技术的进步,人们会惊叹于外科医生在恢复拇指功能时采用的多样方法。关于每种手术相对优缺点的理念差异引发了技术选择的争论,但在重建中必须寻求一个统一的概念,即“用相似组织替代缺失组织”。理想的重建是能够替代所有缺失结构、恢复所有功能且没有供区并发症的重建。拇指同种异体移植符合所有这些标准,也许有朝一日会成为现实。弗纳斯等人关于肢体移植的实验工作让我们越来越接近实现这一目标。即便在当下,骨、关节和肌腱的尸体准备以及带蒂皮瓣正被临床用于拇指再造。初步报告结果良好,当免疫屏障能够被选择性克服时,这些手术预示着未来令人兴奋的前景。大约10年前,利特勒博士在讨论拇指再造时写道:“正如复合组织移植的神经血管蒂方法摆脱了旧有的但有局限的手术方式,使得在替代结构缺失时能进行更精确的规划一样,通过显微外科手术进行复合组织移植所带来的新自由,也绝不能不运用已确立的结构和功能原则。使用游离移植方法的冲动也绝不能诱使外科医生放弃更安全、更可预测的手术。”自利特勒博士表达这些观点后的十年里,显微外科取得了巨大进展,我们认为,从我们的临床经验以及文献中都有充分证据,让我们有信心地表明,拇甲瓣移植是一种安全、可靠且高效的拇指再造方法,与其他技术相比具有显著优势且缺点很少。从解剖学角度看,拇趾与拇指几乎相同,能提供带有肌腱、骨骼、关节和有神经支配的皮肤成分的移植体,在许多情况下,与其他手术相比,能以更优越的方式恢复缺失拇指的特性。我们目前的系列病例包括80例拇甲瓣移植,结果仍然令人满意。简而言之,拇趾能造就出色的拇指。