This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
md:secondary_surgery_trauma [2020/08/08 03:26] admin [History] |
md:secondary_surgery_trauma [2020/08/11 09:27] (current) admin [Replantation] |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
====Introduction==== | ====Introduction==== | ||
+ | ===Classification of secondary surgery=== | ||
+ | from [[jnl: | ||
+ | * repair of structures not primarily repaired | ||
+ | * promote healing/ | ||
+ | * enhance function - arthrodesis, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Replantation ==== | ||
+ | * [[jnl: | ||
+ | * Rate of secondary surgery in replantation is high, and may be multiple | ||
+ | * In replantation - try to do everything primarily -- hard to comeback to do secondary recon | ||
+ | * Timing - 3 months - supple skin -- can be delayed by wound problems; junction of native and flap skin is issue for tendon grafts. | ||
+ | * Flexion more important than extension | ||
+ | * Jupiter - good results with tenolysis in replantation 72 degrees to 130 degrees; Yu 119-159 | ||
- | General | + | ====Cases==== |
- | ******** | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | Semin Plast Surg. 2013 Nov; 27(4): 198–204. | + | |
- | doi: 10.1055/ | + | |
- | PMCID: PMC3842341 | + | |
- | PMID: 24872769 | + | |
- | Secondary Procedures in Replantation | + | |
- | S. Raja Sabapathy, MS, MCh (Plastic Surgery), FRCS (Ed)1 and Praveen Bhardwaj, FNB (Hand & Microsurgery)1 | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Rate of secondary surgery in replantation is high, and may be multiple | + | |
- | ********************************************************************** | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Classification of secondary surgery | + | |
- | - repair of structures not primarily repaired | + | |
- | - promote healing/ | + | |
- | - enhance function - arthrodesis, | + | |
- | + | ||
- | In replantation - try to do everything primarily -- hard to comeback to do secondary recon | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Timing - 3 months - supple skin -- can be delayed by wound problems; junction of native and flap skin is issue for tendon grafts. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Flexion more important than extension | + | |
- | Jupiter - good results with tenolysis in replantation 72 degrees to 130 degrees; Yu 119-159 | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Cases # | + | |
25 Female MVA | 25 Female MVA | ||
Initial treatment at a different hospital - external fixation and debridement; | Initial treatment at a different hospital - external fixation and debridement; | ||
Line 46: | Line 33: | ||
- outstanding issues: loss of supination | - outstanding issues: loss of supination | ||
- | Psychological adaptation | + | ====Psychological adaptation==== |
- | - Limited information - UE only < 10% of all amputations | + | * Bradway and Malone |
- | - psychiatric intervention needed only for minority | + | |
- | - Stages | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | - Guidelines in managing | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
+ | | ||
| | ||
- | Alternatives to secondary reconstruction | + | ====Alternatives to secondary reconstruction==== |
- | - Functional outcome following traumatic upper limb amputation and prosthetic limb fitting☆ | + | |
- | Author links open overlay panelMichael S.PinzurMDJuanAngelatsMDTerry R.LightMDRicardoIzuierdoMDTeresaPluthRN | + | |
- | https:// | + | |
- | Abstract | + | |
- | Nineteen consecutive patients underwent traumatic upper limb amputation for nonreconstructible or replantible upper limb injury at a Level I trauma center over a 9-year-period. Eleven amputations were at the transradial level, five were transhumeral, | + | |
- | Pollicization | + | * [[jnl: |
+ | * early fitting better results | ||
+ | * compare with [[jnl: | ||
- | used less in microsurgical age | + | |
- | - may be best option | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | ====Options==== |
- | - loss of digit | + | ===Pollicization=== |
+ | [[md: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * used less in microsurgical age | ||
+ | | ||
+ | | ||
+ | | ||
+ | | ||
+ | | ||
- | Planning | + | == Planning |
- | - IF by far most common - but can use other digits | + | |
- | | + | |
| | ||
Binhammer and Lister' | Binhammer and Lister' | ||
- | - tendon transfer for opposition - FDS RF | + | * tendon transfer for opposition - FDS RF |
- | - Fixation | + | |
- | - shortening - distally or proximally -- ? length | + | |
- | - check circulation | + | |
- | - | + | |
- | ################################## | + | |
- | Osteoplastic thumb reconstruction | + | |
- | ################################## | + | |
- | ## flap - groin/ | + | ===Thumb lengthening=== |
- | - size: 6-7 cm | + | |
- | - 1-2 cm shortening | + | |
- | - avoid circular seam - either oval or zig-zag | + | |
- | - seam in palmar side of " | + | |
- | ## bone - iliac crest, tibia, radius | + | Ivan Matev' |
- | - make thumb slightly shorter than other side | + | |
- | - bone fixation --> wedge into MC/P1 | + | |
- | ## neurovascular island flap - ulnar side of MF | + | * 50% easy, 80% possible, sometimes 100% in young |
- | - ulnar side of RF | + | * young - slower (1mm /d) but more lengthening |
- | - make sure it is big enough | + | |
- | + | | |
- | ## nerve repair | + | |
+ | | ||
+ | * make sure CMCJ is good, skin at tip is good first, sometimes need to deepen/widen web | ||
- | - Staging - 3 vs 2 vs 1 stage | ||
- | Issues | + | ===Osteoplastic thumb reconstruction== |
- | - sensory recovery | + | |
- | - flap necrosis | + | |
- | - bone graft resorption - related to flap | + | |
+ | * flap - groin/ | ||
+ | * size: 6-7 cm | ||
+ | * 1-2 cm shortening | ||
+ | * avoid circular seam - either oval or zig-zag | ||
+ | * seam in palmar side of " | ||
+ | * bone - iliac crest, tibia, radius | ||
+ | * make thumb slightly shorter than other side | ||
+ | * bone fixation --> wedge into MC/P1 | ||
- | Outcomes | + | * neurovascular island flap - ulnar side of MF |
- | Outcomes in mutilating hand injuries | + | * ulnar side of RF |
- | Severe extremity injuries | + | * make sure it is big enough |
+ | |||
+ | * nerve repair | ||
- | KCC Hand Clinics 2020 | + | * Staging - 3 vs 2 vs 1 stage |
- | - MSK Trauma big burden -- especially developing countries | + | ==Issues== |
- | - need for outcome measures -- move towards PROMs | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | - different PROMs don't correlate well too | + | |
- | - individualized treatment - need shared decision making | + | |
+ | ====Outcomes in mutilating hand injuries ==== | ||
- | ====Options==== | + | * see [[jnl:giladi2016]] |
- | ===Pollicization=== | + | |
- | [[md:trauma_pollicization|Pollicization]] | + | |
- | + | | |
- | ===Thumb lengthening=== | + | |
- | Ivan Matev' | + | |
- | + | | |
- | | + | |
- | - young - slower (1mm /d) but more lengthening | + | |
- | - older - more likely bone graft (45-60 days) if no good callus | + | |
- | - problems | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
====References==== | ====References==== | ||
Line 147: | Line 130: | ||
- Brown, P. W. (1982). Less than ten—Surgeons with amputated fingers. The Journal of Hand Surgery, 7(1), 31–37. https:// | - Brown, P. W. (1982). Less than ten—Surgeons with amputated fingers. The Journal of Hand Surgery, 7(1), 31–37. https:// | ||
- Cheung, K., Hatchell, A., & Thoma, A. (2013). Approach to traumatic hand injuries for primary care physicians. Canadian Family Physician Medecin De Famille Canadien, 59(6), 614–618. | - Cheung, K., Hatchell, A., & Thoma, A. (2013). Approach to traumatic hand injuries for primary care physicians. Canadian Family Physician Medecin De Famille Canadien, 59(6), 614–618. | ||
+ | - Chevrier, J. M., Gingras, G., Lemieux, R., Mongeau, M., Susset, V., & Voyer, R. (1956). [[jnl: | ||
- Foo, A., & Sebastin, S. J. (2016). Secondary Interventions for Mutilating Hand Injuries. Hand Clinics, 32(4), 555–567. https:// | - Foo, A., & Sebastin, S. J. (2016). Secondary Interventions for Mutilating Hand Injuries. Hand Clinics, 32(4), 555–567. https:// | ||
- Foucher, G. (1997). Reconstructive surgery in hand mutilation. Martin Dunitz. | - Foucher, G. (1997). Reconstructive surgery in hand mutilation. Martin Dunitz. | ||
- | - Giladi, A. M., Ranganathan, | + | - Giladi, A. M., Ranganathan, |
- | - Gingras, G., & Lemieux, R. (1956). PSYCHO-SOCIAL AND REHABILITATIVE ASPECTS OF UPPER EXTREMITY AMPUTEES. 75, 5. | + | |
- [[jnl: | - [[jnl: | ||
- How to use the ICF: A Practical Manual for using the International CLassification of Functioning, | - How to use the ICF: A Practical Manual for using the International CLassification of Functioning, | ||
- Krueger, C. A., Wenke, J. C., Cho, M. S., & Hsu, J. R. (2014). Common Factors and Outcome in Late Upper Extremity Amputations After Military Injury: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 28(4), 227–231. https:// | - Krueger, C. A., Wenke, J. C., Cho, M. S., & Hsu, J. R. (2014). Common Factors and Outcome in Late Upper Extremity Amputations After Military Injury: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 28(4), 227–231. https:// | ||
+ | - Pinzur, M. S., Angelats, J., Light, T. R., Izuierdo, R., & Pluth, T. (1994). [[jnl: | ||
+ | - Sabapathy, S. R., & Bhardwaj, P. (2013). [[jnl: | ||
- Swiontkowksi, | - Swiontkowksi, | ||
- [[jnl: | - [[jnl: |