From the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital; the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital; the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Inje University Haeundae Paik Hospital; the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine; and the Centum Institute for Hand and Microsurgery, West Busan Centum Hospital.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Oct;146(4):819-829. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007158.
Multilevel dysvascular injury of the hand can be treated with replantation or revision amputation. The authors compared both modalities regarding functional outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and required resources, as relevant studies are scarce.
In this retrospective review of consecutive case series (replantation, n = 8; revision amputation, n = 11), clinical results and functional outcomes (including grip strength, range of motion, sensory recovery, and grip or pinch ability) were assessed. Patient-reported outcomes, required hospital resources, and treatment cost until 1 year after surgery were compared between both groups.
Six patients used passive prostheses, two used body-powered prostheses, and three did not use a prosthesis in the revision amputation group. All patients in the replantation group could grip objects and had restored hands, with protective sensory recovery and substantial wrist motion, whereas six patients in the revision amputation group were unable to grip or pinch objects. Replantation was associated with superior patient-reported outcomes, but required more hospital resources and treatment costs.
This study suggests that in the treatment of multilevel dysvascular injury of the hand, the surgical method should be chosen on a case-by-case basis. For better functional and patient-reported outcomes, replantation is preferred. Revision amputation can be performed in the absence of sufficient hospital resources and to reduce treatment cost. These findings can aid in the preoperative counseling of patients with multilevel dysvascular injury of the hand.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
手部多发性血运障碍损伤可通过再植或 Revision 截肢进行治疗。由于相关研究较少,作者比较了这两种治疗方式在功能结果、患者报告的结果和所需资源方面的情况。
在这项回顾性连续病例系列研究中(再植组,n = 8;Revision 截肢组,n = 11),评估了临床结果和功能结果(包括握力、活动范围、感觉恢复以及握持或捏合能力)。比较了两组患者报告的结果、所需的医院资源以及手术 1 年后的治疗费用。
在 Revision 截肢组中,有 6 名患者使用了被动假肢,2 名使用了身体动力假肢,3 名未使用假肢。再植组的所有患者都能够握持物体,手部功能恢复,保护性感觉恢复,腕关节活动度较大,而 Revision 截肢组的 6 名患者无法握持或捏合物体。再植组的患者报告结果更好,但需要更多的医院资源和治疗费用。
本研究表明,在治疗手部多发性血运障碍损伤时,应根据具体情况选择手术方法。为了获得更好的功能和患者报告的结果,首选再植术。在缺乏足够的医院资源和降低治疗成本的情况下,可以进行 Revision 截肢。这些发现可以帮助手部多发性血运障碍损伤患者进行术前咨询。
临床问题/证据水平:治疗性,III 级。