Dergiler / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2020 / Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 3

Patient satisfaction after innervated digital artery perforator flap for fingertip injuries

Sayfa
269–275
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Although cold intolerance is hard to treat, fortunately, it generally improves with time.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of the innervated digital artery perforator (IDAP) flap and toanalyze the relationship between patient satisfaction and outcome measures.Methods: A total of 17 fingertips of 15 patients (14 men and one woman; mean age: 47.2 (26-62) years) were included inthis retrospective study.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:At the last follow-up, the static two-pointdiscrimination (s2PD) test, Semmes Weinstein monofilament (SWM) test, and range of motion of the affected finger wereanalyzed.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Although cold intolerance is hard to treat, fortunately, it generally improves with time.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of the innervated digital artery perforator (IDAP) flap and toanalyze the relationship between patient satisfaction and outcome measures.Methods: A total of 17 fingertips of 15 patients (14 men and one woman; mean age: 47.2 (26-62) years) were included inthis retrospective study. Patients’ injured finger and defect type were recorded. At the last follow-up, the static two-pointdiscrimination (s2PD) test, Semmes Weinstein monofilament (SWM) test, and range of motion of the affected finger wereanalyzed. We interviewed patients to determine hand dominance, cold intolerance, and their satisfaction with the result. Weperformed correlation and logistic regression analyses between patient satisfaction and outcome measures.Results: The mean follow-up period was 13.8 (7-18) months. The mean range of motion was 77.3±3.5 (70-80) degrees forthe distal interphalangeal joints of affected fingers. The mean s2PD was 6.4 (3-10) mm, and the SWM records ranged from2.83 to 4.93 monofilament markings. Cold intolerance was noted in seven fingers (41%). Patient satisfaction was negativelycorrelated with cold intolerance, and cold intolerance decreased as the follow-up period extended.Conclusion: IDAP flap satisfies both patient and surgeon, with the only significant problem being cold intolerance, regardingwhich patients must be informed. Although cold intolerance is hard to treat, fortunately, it generally improves with time.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

AYHAN, E., ÇEVİK, K., ÇELİK, V., ESKANDARİ, M. M. (2020). Patient satisfaction after innervated digital artery perforator flap for fingertip injuries. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 3, 269–275. https://ajindex.com/articles/353442

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Lemmon JA, Janis JE, Rohrich RJ. Soft-tissue injuries of the fingertip: methods of evaluation and treatment. An algorithmic approach. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008
  2. [Crossref] 2. Rehim SA, Chung KC. Local flaps of the hand. Hand Clin 2014
  3. [Crossref] 3. Tang JB, Elliot D, Adani R, Saint-Cyr M, Stang F. Repair and reconstruction of thumb and finger tip injuries: A global view. Clin Plast Surg 2014
  4. [Crossref] 4. Basat SO, Uğurlu AM, Aydın A, Aksan T. Digital artery perforator flaps: an easy and reliable choice for fingertip amputation reconstruction. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2013
  5. [Crossref] 5. Ozcanli H, Cavit A. Innervated digital artery perforator flap: A versatile technique for fingertip reconstruction. J Hand Surg Am 2015
  6. [Crossref] 6. Ozcanli H, Coskunfirat OK, Bektas G, Cavit A. Innervated digital artery perforator flap. J Hand Surg Am 2013
  7. [Crossref] 7. Koshima I, Urushibara K, Fukuda N, et al. Digital artery perforator flaps for fingertip reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006
  8. [Crossref] 8. Kawakatsu M, Ishikawa K. Dorsal digital perforator flap for reconstruction of distal dorsal finger defects. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010
  9. [Crossref] 9. Mitsunaga N, Mihara M, Koshima I, et al. Digital artery perforator (DAP) flaps: Modifications for fingertip and finger stump reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010
  10. [Crossref] 10. Özcanlı H, Bektaş G, Cavit A, Duymaz A, Coşkunfırat OK. Reconstruction of fingertip defects with digital artery perforator flap. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2015
  11. [Crossref] 11. Lanzetta M, Mastropasqua B, Chollet A, Brisebois N. Versatility of the homodigital triangular neurovascular island flap in fingertip reconstruction. J Hand Surg Br 1995
  12. [Crossref] 12. Güleç A, Özdemir A, Durgut F, Yildirim A, Acar MA. Comparison of innervated digital artery perforator flap versus homodigital reverse flow flap techniques for fingertip reconstruction. J Hand Surg Am 2019
  13. [Crossref] 13. Kayalar M, Bal E, Toros T, Süğün ST, Özaksar K, Gürbüz Y. The outcome of direct-flow neurovascular island flaps in pulp defects. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2011
  14. [Crossref] 14. Kim KS, Yoo SI, Kim DY, Lee SY, Cho BH. Fingertip reconstruction using a volar flap based on the transverse palmar branch of the digital artery. Ann Plast Surg 2001
  15. [Crossref] 15. Yildirim S, Avci G, Akan