A Comparison of Outcomes between Finger and Pulp Replantation/Revascularization in a Single Center.

UNLABELLED

Supermicrosurgery has allowed the replantation/revascularization of the pulp, but how does this currently compare with more proximal digit replantation/revascularization?

METHODS

In a retrospective case study over a 5-year period at our institute, a total of 21 patients (n = 21) had either finger or pulp replantation-revascularization posttrauma. All pulp replants had a single-vessel anastomosis viz., "artery-to-artery" or "artery-to-vein" only, with venous outflow dependent on the skin-shave technique, while more proximal replants had both arterial and venous anastomoses. Age, sex, ischemic time, handedness, smoker status, and injury-replant interval were compared between the two groups, with all procedures performed by a single surgeon. The outcome parameters studied were length of hospital stay, timeline for wound healing, viability, and functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Our patients consisted of 18 men and three women, of which 14.3% were smokers and 85.7% were right-handed. There were 11 finger replantation/revascularizations (n = 11) versus 10 pulp replantation/revascularizations (n = 10). The average age of digit replantation/revascularization patients was 44.8 years compared with 26.4 years in pulp replantation/revascularization patients (Student test, = 0.04). Mean ischemia time in digital replants was 67 minutes versus 32.3 minutes in pulp replantation/revascularization (Student test, = 0.056). Digital replantation/revascularization was viable in 72% of cases versus a 90% viability in the pulp subcohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In our patient cohort, pulp replantation/revascularizations produced better postoperative viability. Where supermicrosurgery expertise is available, pulp replantation/revascularization should be considered a worthwhile option when compared with digital replantation/revascularization.