Sullivan Matthew A, Adkinson Joshua M
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL.
Division of Plastic Surgery, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
J Hand Surg Am. 2017 Jan;42(1):34-40.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.11.006.
Many techniques exist for simple syndactyly reconstruction. The most commonly used techniques involve either skin grafts or a dorsal metacarpal advancement flap. Our aim was to review and compare the outcomes of these 2 techniques systematically.
We reviewed articles from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar published between January 1966 and January 2016. We identified studies that reported outcomes after reconstruction of simple syndactyly using skin grafts and those using only a dorsal metacarpal advancement flap. Cases of complex syndactyly and those that were not clearly differentiated by technique or type of simple syndactyly were excluded. Outcomes were then stratified by technique and type of syndactyly (complete and incomplete).
We identified 693 articles and selected 34 for inclusion. No standardized outcome measure was uniformly applied in the examined studies. Overall, skin grafting procedures were associated with more complications (eg, flap necrosis/graft failure, contracture, web creep, hypertrophic scarring) and a greater need for revision. When stratified by subtype, patients with simple, complete syndactyly who underwent skin grafting had a significantly higher rate of hypertrophic scarring than those who underwent reconstruction with a dorsal metacarpal advancement flap.
Simple syndactyly reconstruction with a dorsal metacarpal advancement flap may lead to fewer complications than procedures using skin grafts. However, substantial limitations of currently available evidence do not allow for the recommendation of a specific technique. Future research should use a uniform reporting system for syndactyly classification and complications.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.
存在多种用于单纯并指重建的技术。最常用的技术包括皮肤移植或掌背推进皮瓣。我们的目的是系统回顾和比较这两种技术的效果。
我们回顾了1966年1月至2016年1月期间发表在PubMed、MEDLINE、EMBASE和谷歌学术上的文章。我们确定了报告使用皮肤移植重建单纯并指以及仅使用掌背推进皮瓣重建单纯并指后效果的研究。复杂并指病例以及那些未按技术或单纯并指类型明确区分的病例被排除。然后根据技术和并指类型(完全性和不完全性)对结果进行分层。
我们识别出693篇文章,选择了34篇纳入研究。在所审查的研究中,没有统一应用标准化的结果测量方法。总体而言,皮肤移植手术相关的并发症更多(如皮瓣坏死/移植失败、挛缩、蹼变宽、肥厚性瘢痕形成),且需要更多的翻修手术。按亚型分层时,接受皮肤移植的单纯完全性并指患者的肥厚性瘢痕形成率显著高于接受掌背推进皮瓣重建的患者。
与使用皮肤移植的手术相比,采用掌背推进皮瓣进行单纯并指重建可能导致更少的并发症。然而,现有证据存在重大局限性,并不能推荐特定的技术。未来的研究应使用统一的报告系统来进行并指分类和并发症报告。
研究类型/证据水平:治疗性IV级。