• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

根据断指平面评估成功指尖再植后(无论是否修复神经)的感觉恢复情况。

Assessment of sensory outcomes after successful fingertip replantation with or without nerve repair according to amputation level.

机构信息

Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey.

Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery Clinic, Bilecik State Hospital, Bilecik, Turkey.

出版信息

Microsurgery. 2021 May;41(4):348-354. doi: 10.1002/micr.30721. Epub 2021 Feb 16.

DOI:10.1002/micr.30721
PMID:33590499
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Good sensory outcome in fingertip replantation is a major part of the success of reconstruction and using the finger. Although some sensorial outcomes have been reported in various series in the literature, there is no controlled study, which demonstrates the anatomical levels where nerve repair should or should not be performed. We aimed to assess sensorial outcomes of fingertip amputations with or without nerve coaptation according to amputation level.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and July 2018, patients with Tamai Zone 1 and Zone 2 amputations underwent replantation. The patients were divided two main groups. Patients underwent nerve coaptation were grouped as Group 1, and those coaptation not performed as Group 2. In addition, subgroups were designed according to level of the amputation. Tamai zone 1 amputations were grouped as groups 1a and 2a. Tamai zone 2 amputations were grouped as groups 1b and 2b. The mean age was 30.8 ± 30.8 years in Group 1a, 33.2 ± 12.6 years in Group 1b, 34.1 ± 13.6 years in Group 2a, 34.3 ± 11.1 years in Group 2b. Type of injury were evaluated as clean cut (with knife, saw etc.), moderately crushed, and severely crushed and/or avulsion. In Group 1a, one prominent branch of the nerve was repaired, and in Group 1b, the nerve in both side was repaired. The mean duration of replantation in Group 1a was 1 h and 40 min (1 h and 15 min-2 h), whereas this time was 1 h and 15 min (1 h - 1 h and 35 min) in Group 2a. Then, 2 h 15 min (1 h and 55 min-2 h and 50 min) in Group 1b, and 2 h (1 h and 45-2 h 25 min) in Group 2b. Mean age, type of injury and length of follow-up were statistically compared. Sensorial outcome was evaluated by 2-point discrimination test and the Semmes-Weinstein test.

RESULTS

According to the Semmes-Weinstein test, 33% of the fingers tested were normal, 58% had diminished light touch, 8% had diminished protective sensation, and 0% had loss of protective sensation in Group 1a; In Group 1b, these values were 35% (7/20), 55% (11/20), 10% (2/20), 0%; in Group 2a, 38% (6/16), 56% (9/16), 6% (1/16), 0%; in Group 2b, 25% (4/16), 44% (7/16), %25 (4/16), 6% (1/16), respectively Mean static two-point discriminations in Groups 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b were 4.17 ± 0.58, 4.55 ± 0.69, 4.25 ± 0.68, and 5.9 ± 1.26 mm, respectively. The mean follow-up duration was 24 months in Group 1a, 24 months in Group 1b, 26 months in Group 2a, 21 months in Group 2b. Then, 17 (3 in Group 1a, 6 in Group 1b, 4 in Group 2a, 4 in Group 2b) of the 64 fingers were clean cut amputation, 45 (9 in Group 1a, 14 in Group 1b, 11 in Group 2a, 11 in Group 2b) were moderately crushed amputation, and 2 (1 in Group 2a, 1 in Group 2b) were severely crushed and/or avulsion injury. There was no statistically significant difference between groups 1a and 2a (p = .71). On the other hand, there was a statistically significant increase in sensory outcomes of patients in Group 1b compared to Group 2b (p = .009). There was no statistically significant between the groups in terms of mean age, type of injury and length of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

We think that nerve repair does not have a positive effect on sensorial recovery in Tamai Zone 1 amputations, but nerve coaptation should be performed in Tamai Zone 2 replantations if possible for better sensorial result.

摘要

背景

指尖再植的良好感觉结果是重建和使用手指成功的主要部分。尽管文献中有各种系列报道了一些感觉结果,但没有对照研究证明神经修复应该或不应该在解剖学水平上进行。我们旨在根据截肢水平评估指尖截肢有无神经吻合的感觉结果。

方法

2013 年 1 月至 2018 年 7 月,接受 Tamai 区 1 和区 2 截肢的患者接受再植。将患者分为两个主要组。行神经吻合的患者分为第 1 组,未行神经吻合的患者分为第 2 组。此外,根据截肢水平设计了亚组。Tamai 区 1 截肢分为组 1a 和组 2a。Tamai 区 2 截肢分为组 1b 和组 2b。第 1a 组的平均年龄为 30.8 ± 30.8 岁,第 1b 组为 33.2 ± 12.6 岁,第 2a 组为 34.1 ± 13.6 岁,第 2b 组为 34.3 ± 11.1 岁。损伤类型评估为清洁切割(用刀、锯等)、中度挤压和严重挤压和/或撕脱。在第 1a 组中,修复了一根突出的神经分支,在第 1b 组中,修复了两侧的神经。第 1a 组的再植平均时间为 1 小时 40 分钟(1 小时 15 分钟至 2 小时),而第 2a 组的时间为 1 小时 15 分钟(1 小时至 1 小时 35 分钟)。然后,第 1b 组为 2 小时 15 分钟(1 小时 55 分钟至 2 小时 50 分钟),第 2b 组为 2 小时(1 小时 45 分钟至 2 小时 25 分钟)。统计比较了平均年龄、损伤类型和随访时间。感觉结果通过两点辨别测试和 Semmes-Weinstein 测试进行评估。

结果

根据 Semmes-Weinstein 测试,第 1a 组中有 33%的手指正常,58%的手指触觉减弱,8%的手指保护性感觉减弱,0%的手指保护性感觉丧失;第 1b 组中这些值分别为 35%(7/20)、55%(11/20)、10%(2/20)、0%;第 2a 组分别为 38%(6/16)、56%(9/16)、6%(1/16)、0%;第 2b 组分别为 25%(4/16)、44%(7/16)、25%(4/16)、6%(1/16)。第 1a、1b、2a 和 2b 组的平均静态两点辨别测试分别为 4.17 ± 0.58、4.55 ± 0.69、4.25 ± 0.68 和 5.9 ± 1.26 毫米。第 1a 组的平均随访时间为 24 个月,第 1b 组为 24 个月,第 2a 组为 26 个月,第 2b 组为 21 个月。然后,64 个手指中有 17 个(第 1a 组 3 个,第 1b 组 6 个,第 2a 组 4 个,第 2b 组 4 个)为清洁切割截肢,45 个(第 1a 组 9 个,第 1b 组 14 个,第 2a 组 11 个,第 2b 组 11 个)为中度挤压截肢,2 个(第 2a 组 1 个,第 2b 组 1 个)为严重挤压和/或撕脱伤。第 1a 组和第 2a 组之间的感觉结果没有统计学差异(p =.71)。另一方面,第 1b 组的患者感觉结果与第 2b 组相比有统计学显著改善(p =.009)。各组之间在平均年龄、损伤类型和随访时间方面无统计学差异。

结论

我们认为神经修复对 Tamai 区 1 截肢的感觉恢复没有积极影响,但如果可能的话,Tamai 区 2 再植应进行神经吻合,以获得更好的感觉结果。

相似文献

1
Assessment of sensory outcomes after successful fingertip replantation with or without nerve repair according to amputation level.根据断指平面评估成功指尖再植后(无论是否修复神经)的感觉恢复情况。
Microsurgery. 2021 May;41(4):348-354. doi: 10.1002/micr.30721. Epub 2021 Feb 16.
2
Supermicrosurgical Experience pertaining to Replantation of Tamai Zone 1 Fingertip Amputations.超微外科经验与 Tamai 区 1 指尖离断再植。
Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2023 Feb;55(1):28-34. doi: 10.1055/a-1894-7320. Epub 2022 Aug 30.
3
Tamai Zone 1 Fingertip Amputation: Reconstruction Using a Digital Artery Flap Compared With Microsurgical Replantation.玉井1区指尖离断:采用指动脉皮瓣重建与显微外科再植的比较
J Hand Surg Am. 2019 Aug;44(8):655-661. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2019.03.016. Epub 2019 May 10.
4
Do we need to repair the nerves when replanting distal finger amputations?断指再植时是否需要修复神经?
J Reconstr Microsurg. 2010 Jul;26(5):347-54. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1249320. Epub 2010 Mar 2.
5
A comparative study of digital nerve and digital arterial repairs performed using running versus interrupted suture techniques in finger replantations.在手指再植中,采用连续缝合与间断缝合技术修复指神经和指动脉的对比研究。
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2023 Feb;29(2):236-246. doi: 10.14744/tjtes.2022.23012.
6
Reconstruction of circulation in the fingertip without vein repair in zone I replantation.I区再植术中不进行静脉修复的指尖血液循环重建。
J Hand Surg Am. 2008 Nov;33(9):1597-601. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2008.05.005.
7
Sensory outcome of fingertip replantations without nerve repair.未进行神经修复的指尖再植的感觉结果。
Microsurgery. 2008;28(7):524-30. doi: 10.1002/micr.20543.
8
The use of arteriovenous anastomosis for venous drainage during Tamai zone I fingertip replantation.在玉井I区指尖再植术中使用动静脉吻合进行静脉引流。
Injury. 2018 Jun;49(6):1113-1118. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.03.027. Epub 2018 Mar 27.
9
Assessment of survival rates compared according to the Tamai and Yamano classifications in fingertip replantations.根据玉井和山野分类法对指尖再植成活率的评估比较。
Indian J Orthop. 2016 Jul-Aug;50(4):384-9. doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.185602.
10
[Results After Distal Digital Replantation - Is It Worth The Effort?].[手指末节再植术后结果——是否值得付出努力?]
Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2017 Feb;49(1):29-36. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-102854. Epub 2017 Apr 19.

引用本文的文献

1
Soft tissue reconstruction of the fingers with free medial plantar artery perforator flap.游离足底内侧动脉穿支皮瓣修复手指软组织缺损
J Hand Microsurg. 2024 Apr 16;16(4):100063. doi: 10.1016/j.jham.2024.100063. eCollection 2024 Oct.
2
Tamai zone -I and -II replantation versus reconstruction with local flaps: retrospective analysis for functional and cosmetic results.第Ⅰ和Ⅱ区指腹再植与局部皮瓣修复的对比:功能和外观效果的回顾性分析
Case Reports Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2024 Feb 26;11(1):2320882. doi: 10.1080/23320885.2024.2320882. eCollection 2024.