4.6 Article

A Comparison of Functional Outcomes and Therapeutic Costs: Single-Digit Replantation versus Revision Amputation

期刊

PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
卷 141, 期 2, 页码 244E-249E

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004024

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81371965]
  2. Shanghai Municipal Education Commission-Gaofeng Clinical Medicine grant [20161429]
  3. Shanghai Pujiang Program [16PJD035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The functional outcomes and therapeutic costs between digit replantation and revision amputation have remained controversial. Methods: A total of 1023 patients with single-digit traumatic amputation or devascularization who underwent successful digit replantation (failure excluded) or revision amputation from January 1, 2013, to January 1, 2016, were included in this study. All cases were subgrouped based on Tamai level of amputation and the injured digit. The clinical outcomes were assessed using the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire 1 year after the initial operation. The authors also compared the cost of treatment, the duration of hospitalization, and the duration of sick leave between the two treatments. Results: Replantation of small (level I to V), ring (level I to III), and long (level I) fingers showed no functional benefit compared with initial revision amputation. In contrast, replantation of thumb (level I to V), index (level I to V), long (level II to V), and ring (level IV to V) fingers had better outcomes. The cost of replantation was higher and the durations of hospitalization and sick leave of replantation were also longer compared with the revision amputation group. Conclusions: Single amputated injuries of small (level I to V), ring (level I to III), and long (level I) fingers are a relative contradiction for replantation. Replantation of thumb (level I to V), index (level I to V), long (level II to V), and ring (level IV to V) fingers showed extra benefit compared with revision amputation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据